Gender Based Hiring Quotas in Australia 68

[Hurricanes]

So... I work for a large-ish consultancy in Australia. Recently they have introduced quotas. 50% of new hires must be female. Also, as there is a lack of female representation in senior positions, preference must be given to a female rather than a male when promotion time comes around.

I think this is all a bit backwards and trying too hard. With something like 15-20% of university graduates being female, a 50% minimum hiring rate is asking for trouble IMO.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

 

[KENAT]

Well, some might argue that "positive discrimination" is still discrimination.

If I was a relatively junior male employee then I might be thinking my chances of advancement may be better elsewhere and plan accordingly - your employer may or may not care.

Simplistically it would also seem that the most important thing should be who is the best candidate, and any preference over gender, race, sexuality, veteran status, age... even with the intent of 'affirmative action' should perhaps be secondary.

Will your employer actually drop their recruitment requirements, or wait longer to fill slots or...

Then others proselytize the benefits of diversity for diversities sake, or at least the benefits of getting different views on things.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[hokie66]

I think the term is "Affirmative Action". Encouragement is one thing, a quota system is another. I think the company may be successful in its goal, because if the word gets around, they won't have many male applicants.

 

[MikeHalloran]

The company is doomed.

They will need a huge HR department, just to deal with the sniping and backbiting and conflict that will emerge from the estrogen cloud; as a result they will be continuously hiring, and will need to hire at least 80 pct female to keep the resident population at 50 pct.

They will be in even more useless meeetings than is now the case, and they will accomplish nothing useful in any business or economic sense.







Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[KENAT]

"Estrogen cloud" hmm.

I've seen sniping and backstabbing in male dominated environments too, plenty of pointless meetings while they're at it.

Not sure I entirely buy into your gender based preconceptions Mike.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[truckandbus]

Not sure I agree with quotas per se but it wouldn't surprise me to have 50% or higher females in senior positions - in my experience women in engineering seem to work harder than men and have more of a focus on their career path than most men I know.

I do see a trend in larger companies to engage a more diverse team for problem solving and product development (i.e. teams made up of people not like you) which is fine if you have enough employees to put 'one of each' on every project. The trouble I see is that each team member is being told their idea is the special one that breaks the mould and will revolutionize the industry so when you have to tell them that different does not necessarily equal better it comes across as not supporting diversity

 

[MartinLe]

In most parts of the world, women rather than men will take time out for parenting and either not work or work reduced time for a few years. So for the same time with the company, men are likely to have more working experience than women with children.
Also, if you work part time the chance that you get 'interesting' projects is far smaller, so your visibility to the bosses is worse.
Just two issues a quota for management positions is trying (in a heavyhanded way!) to adress.
Some also believe that the whole maturity, emotional intelligence abnd organizational skills you learn when dealing with small children is useful in management - so time out taken for family is not a total loss in terms of useful learning. I'm not sure about this, btw.

Maybe the quota for entry level positions is to ensure that a few years down the line, the pool of women from which to promote is large enough?

All of this assuming that the company in question recruits it's management from it's engineers, not from MBA schools or somesuch.

Lastly, my guess is that quotas seldom lead to unqualified people beeing hired (because those would be a PITA for the hiring manager!), rather that positions remain vacant longer until a fitting candidate comes along.

 

[rb1957]

"Affirmative Action" "Reverse Discrimination" ... policies meant to reverse previous perceived discrimination. Well meaning, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I contend that women are different to men, almost as much as men are different to other men. (i can hear the flame-throwers clicking ...) As individuals we are all different to one another ... hence the definition of "individual". We all have abilities and aptitudes, and disabilities. As a stereotype women didn't favour STEM subjects, in much the same way as children are not adults (and so IMHO we do children a great disservice in trying to treat them as adults).

But I think we can accept that in the past we have discouraged women from going into STEM courses at uni, and this is clearly the problem. To say "girls shouldn't be interested in STEM" is clearly wrong (enforcing a stereotype onto individuals). To encourage women into STEM is a reasonable way to reverse the previous discrimination (ie maybe give them special grants), so if their aptitude leans that way help them (there'll still be plenty of obstacles to overcome).

When we're hiring we should be looking at the individuals behaviours and abilities. The problem is getting women to the other side of the hiring desk (ie to apply for jobs). To mandate 50% hires must be women is (IMHO) short-sighted and a knee-jerk reaction to the problem, and a pretty blatant attempt to steal some head-lines. It will mean that the company is forced to hire less than the best applicants, it will engender acrimony with other employees ("you only got the job because you're a woman"), it will presumably force the company to promote less suitable candidates (so that the less suitable hires don't linger at the entry level), and it may force the company to hire contractors/outsource (since they can't hire enough permanent staff) ... and maybe this is the point !?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[cranky108]

There maybe a point here, in that there are studies that women are paid less then men for the same work. So maybe this is a cost saving measure. Yes I know this sounds just plain stupid.

Actually in the US I have heard that more women are attending universities than men so this maybe a way to get ahead of a trend. Or just a plain old government idea.

In my area, the 50% ratio would be difficult, as it is much harder to find women who want to do the fieldwork that we require. We have a difficult enough time keeping qualified men because the industry is very tight.

 

[BUGGAR]

I remember when we had quotas to help the disadvantaged. All of a sudden, there was too much work for the disadvantaged. And so the disadvantaged people had to hire the old advantaged people to do their work.
This happened to me. I was the silent structural engineer on a lot of projects.

 

[FoxRox]

I guess I can't speak to the plight of Australian women, but some American women do need help with a few things - for example: the removal of lids from pickle jars.

Most other things, however, they are perfectly capable of. To suggest they are somehow lesser beings in need of special treatment is absurd and offensive. I sometimes think I can see wisps of smoke escaping my wife's ears when she see's women clamoring for special treatment, or anyone suggesting they need it. Election cycles are particularly painful, as she regularly sees herself lumped in with "the woman vote". Yes, half of our population, evenly distributed, is considered a homogeneous "demographic" by our wise political experts. It is sickening.

The irony of it all is that it's the same people who go on and on about "equality" who routinely categorize people, labeling them based on gender, race, religion, etc.

On self-reflection, I suppose it is easy for me as a white male to sit back and claim everything is fine the way it is. Perhaps my life has been made easy by the circumstances of my birth. If there is a lack of vision, I apologize. But for the life of me, I cannot see how this quota policy, or any other like it, is good for anyone - especially those who it demeans in the name of helping them.

 

[IRstuff]

"especially those who it demeans in the name of helping them"

If it does that. Is the "best" person really that much more deserving than someone who's almost as good? That presumes that the interviewing process is perfectly quantitative, objective, and accurate, but is it really? Has anyone one in your company actually analyzed whether your interviewing process results in the best end performance? I find that in most cases, successful interviewees simply fit the culture better or are better at glad handing. Because, at the end of the day, we almost never give interviewees an entrace exam, do we? So we barely even know whether the interviewee is truly qualified and competent to the level we need, assuming we even know what that is. I once interviewed someone who got a 4.0 GPA in college, but couldn't engineer their way out of a problem that was both described to them and solved for them 3 times in the same interview. Nevertheless, his GPA would have been the qualification threshold they exceeded, had we not tested them. So, while quotas may, or may not, be a good thing, there's nothing that says you necessarily have to lower your standards; the question is whether your standards are gross overkill or even meaningful.

Certainly, if some of the things said in this thread are actually what the posters believe, then we are lightyears away from a truly egalitarian society. Certainly, nothing has changed in the toy aisles of Walmart; there's still a "pink" aisle that almost all boys know is for girls, and few girls are seen wandering down the action figure aisles.

But, girls, to this date, do better in math and science until about high school, and a still unanswered question is why is there a mass migration away from STEM at that point. Is it really gender, hormones, or peer/cultural pressures?

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

 

[SLTA]

This whole thread is stupid.

Sincerely, a woman who has worked her bahooty off to get even a modicum of respect from old fart white men engineers, and who honestly is SICK of people telling her that there's really no problem, honey, so just sit down and be quiet.

Sorry, but YET ANOTHER study just came out about women in engineering being paid less, treated like crap, not getting promotions, etc, and yet we have threads like this.

Please remember: we're not all guys!

 

[hokie66]

SLTA, I think we all agree that it is stupid to have a 50% hiring quota, which is what this thread is about.

 

[BigInch]

I can see that there are reverse discrimination issues, however there are many years of legal precedent of the validity of affirmative action programs being necessary to correct injustice and inequalities of many kinds. I survived the quota system. Sharpen up and maybe you will too. And perhaps some day you'll all learn that diversity promotes adaptability and strength.

 

[Artisi]

Nothing wrong with 50/50 provided skills etc are factored into the equation.
Having said that, elmployment should be qualification based certainly not gender based.

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia.)

 

[CheckerHater]

The wrong thing about quota, ANY QUOTA, is that trying to replace merit with statistical representation creates slippery slope.

Today too few women, tomorrow too many Jews, what's next?

"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert"
Arthur C. Clarke Profiles of the future

 

[controlnovice]

...in that there are studies that women are paid less then men for the same work

This is a false narrative. One always hears women are paid 78% less....and the listener/reader interprets the "...for the same work."

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the...der-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

I ran into this quota at a previous company. There were several of us (men) that were at the level where our next step up was supervisory/managerial. They came right out and said to the whole group that they were looking for a woman to fill the position, and filled it with someone two grade levels below us. The company lost several good engineers for this, so I guess their women/men ratio increased and management got their bonus for meeting their goal.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

 

[rb1957]

and how did that make you feel ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[controlnovice]

20 years ago, we were looking for someone with 20yrs+ experience in a certain field.

We had to justify this greatly to HR because if we limited it to 20+yrs experience, we were discriminating against minorities because they weren't in sufficient numbers in schools (in this field) 40 years ago, to have the 20+yrs experience.

An additional problem with quota's is the connotation that the person(s) brought in to meet the quota are not thought highly of by the other workers.

I've had a relative and a friend let go from gov't jobs, given the reason the position was obsolete, only for them to find the position was filled by someone else (and in one case, multiple people) to meet a quota.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.