Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Female Hiring Targets

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,993 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What happens if you go to an interview and they hire a woman anyway, as they need to fill certain quotas.

    Surely you've a discrimination case?

    Has any company proposed implementing measures that lead you to believe that there is a serious risk of female candidates being selected over better male candidates?


  • Options
    #33
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What is the difference between a ''target'' and a quota, for a start
    A quota is a hard limit, one which places an obligation to to reach a certain number or to not exceed another. It also implies either that it cannot be breached or that penalties exist for breaching it.

    A target is a goal, which by definition can be missed.
    Why would rebalancing continue after quotas are dropped like some sort of magical ripple effect?
    Gender disparities tend to be down to systemic bias more than ability.
    What does one do to a hiring strategy to make it more gender accessible to target certain genders?
    For example, spending more of your hiring budget advertising towards women. Examining the nature of your employment offer to highlight or improve opportunities for women. Surveying women to find out what it is about your company that causes them to apply less, and then seeking to address that. If possible.
    OR it might far more likely simply mean that the best candidates for the job were hired.
    All other things being equal, and assuming you're not basing the stat on small numbers, then one gender being hired at a rate of 3:1 when applicants are 1:1, says that you have a bias problem. Otherwise you're asserting that men are just better at that job than women.
    Personally I know women working at the highest positions available in many sectors, including very technical, traditionally male fields such as engineering, law, architecture, scientific research, civil service - they tell me there were no barriers to getting where they are
    For all of these women that you conveniently know and have discussed workplace equality with, there is another woman with the exact opposite experience.


  • Options
    #34
    landofthetree
    Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭landofthetree


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Free market capitalism is founded on discrimination.

    Not it's not.

    The free market wants me to be allowed buy goods and services from the good people all over the world. But I cant. I'm limited to the EU and a handful of countries that we have free trade agreements with.

    Tariffs discriminate against billions of people trying to make a better life for themselves.


  • Options
    #35
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭wench


    landofthetree wrote: »
    But that means only a small number of companies can have 50:50.

    If there are 900 male engineers and 100 female engineers in the country and if 10 companies exist who all hire 100 people then how can every company have 50:50?
    It's nice you're concerned for your competitors, but let them figure out how to make their offering more attractive to women.

    You can sit back and enjoy the benefits of having a workforce that more closely matches the people you're trying to design and build for.


  • Options
    #36
    landofthetree
    Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭landofthetree


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    In this kind of scenario, you'll probably find that the strategy will include measures to increase the supply of female engineers over time.

    Like in Sweden where it has resulted in less women in the STEM fields?

    The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM
    A new study explores a strange paradox: In countries that empower women, they are less likely to choose math and science professions.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553592/

    Also are we going to have a strategy for professional that women dominate?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    mailforkev
    Registered Users Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭mailforkev


    I’ll be hiring three people in the next few weeks for a couple of projects.
    Will aim to have an even split of male and female candidates for interview, the recruitment teams will filter out the chaff for me either way.
    However, the best candidates will get the jobs.
    Personally I like having, and working in, a well balanced team.


  • Options
    #38
    landofthetree
    Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭landofthetree


    wench wrote: »
    It's nice you're concerned for your competitors, but let them figure out how to make their offering more attractive to women.

    You can sit back and enjoy the benefits of having a workforce that more closely matches the people you're trying to design and build for.

    That doesnt solve the issue. Every company cant do it and that's the point.

    You can't bring in a law demanding 50:50 unless you have 50:50 entry to all professions at the start.


  • Options
    #39
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,288 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    No one is bringing in that law though so don’t worry about it


  • Options
    #40
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭wench


    landofthetree wrote: »
    That doesnt solve the issue. Every company cant do it and that's the point.

    You can't bring in a law demanding 50:50 unless you have 50:50 entry to all professions at the start.
    And nobody has proposed such a law, as far as I'm aware.
    Until we start breeding embryos for specific jobs, a la Brave New World, that would never be practical.


    Having a target to improve your gender/equality/disability representation, and being unable to meet it will give more motivation to look at the factors skewing your industry so much one way, and hopefully address them in some systemic fashion.


  • Options
    #41
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,993 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    landofthetree wrote: »
    Not it's not.

    The free market wants me to be allowed buy goods and services from the good people all over the world. But I cant. I'm limited to the EU and a handful of countries that we have free trade agreements with.

    Tariffs discriminate against billions of people trying to make a better life for themselves.

    Allowing free trade with countries with inherently different safety, quality and employment legislation is inherently discriminatory.

    But allowing people to trade is just one aspect of capitalism - the fundamental foundations of capitalism ensure that wealthy people make more money, and have more opportunities and easier opportunities to make more money.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,713 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    It is unfortunate that history repeats itself as farce. Other states that have tried to implement quota polices to match political doctrines have found that the boomerang effect rebounds on them.


  • Options
    #43
    landofthetree
    Registered Users Posts: 2,345 ✭✭✭landofthetree


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Allowing free trade with countries with inherently different safety, quality and employment legislation is inherently discriminatory.

    But allowing people to trade is just one aspect of capitalism - the fundamental foundations of capitalism ensure that wealthy people make more money, and have more opportunities and easier opportunities to make more money.

    Free trade benefits the environments and poor workers. Capitalism leads to innovation and a reduction in pollution.



    Capitalism has been the only system that has lifed billions out of poverty.


  • Options
    #44
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭wench


    landofthetree wrote: »
    Free trade benefits the environments and poor workers. Capitalism leads to innovation and a reduction in pollution.



    Capitalism has been the only system that has lifed billions out of poverty.
    How does capitalism reduce pollution?
    Treating your polluting by-products reduces profit, so why would you?


  • Options
    #45
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    All this talk about capitalism leading to x or y..


    Capitalism doesn't give a damn for innovation, pollution, equality or feck all. Left unchecked it will consume everything to feed itself.


    Any time innovation has occurred it's only because it was also coincidentally profitable to do so. Plenty of times where there has been no innovation because there was no profit on it.


  • Options
    #46
    Francie Barrett
    Registered Users Posts: 16,621 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Like this, you mean?
    https://www.coventry.ac.uk/primary-news/university-tackles-nursing-gender-gap-with-first-bursary-for-men/
    There is nothing in that article that suggests minimum male quotas are being set on jobs currently dominated by women.


  • Options
    #47
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,993 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Francie Barrett wrote: »
    There is nothing in that article that suggests minimum male quotas are being set on jobs currently dominated by women.

    There is nothing in any of the rumours posted here that suggests that minimum female quotas are being set on jobs currently dominated by men.


  • Options
    #48
    LegallyAbroad
    Registered Users Posts: 352 ✭✭LegallyAbroad


    An easy solution would to have 33% quotas for both genders for all jobs.


  • Options
    #49
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭the-island-man


    LegallyAbroad wrote: »
    An easy solution would to have 33% quotas for both genders for all jobs.

    Sounds great but if you're a woman or a man applying for a role and you don't get it because of a company level gender target, does it make it any better that you contributed to equality when you can't pay the bills at the end of the month?!


  • Options
    #50
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,993 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    the-island-man wrote: »
    Sounds great but if you're a woman or a man applying for a role and you don't get it because of a company level gender target, does it make it any better that you contributed to equality when you can't pay the bills at the end of the month?!

    It would be great if you could look at the actual details of some of these policies to better understand how they work before you stir up too many doubts and uncertainties.


  • Options
    #51
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭the-island-man


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    It would be great if you could look at the actual details of some of these policies to better understand how they work before you stir up too many doubts and uncertainties.

    It might be useful to know your background? Do you work in the public or private sector? Have you ever worked in an American Multinational?

    You make it sound like I'm the bogeyman trying to whip up fear. I would like to retract part of my original post when I mentioned press releases being the way in which companies communicate this. It's more likely to be internal memo's. However I am based in the west of Ireland and the I.T sector is relatively small so I have kept in contact with a fair number of past colleagues and this idea of gender targets seems to be consistent.

    Maybe let's flip this on it's head. If the means of achieving these targets were to just encourage more women to enter certain sectors of industry why not promote it the way it has been done for years through supporting STEM events and sponsoring local community groups. Why put a target in place?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    LegallyAbroad
    Registered Users Posts: 352 ✭✭LegallyAbroad


    the-island-man wrote: »
    Sounds great but if you're a woman or a man applying for a role and you don't get it because of a company level gender target, does it make it any better that you contributed to equality when you can't pay the bills at the end of the month?!

    If it applied for all jobs you could surely get a job in a sector where your gender is underrepresented?


  • Options
    #53
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭the-island-man


    LegallyAbroad wrote: »
    If it applied for all jobs you could surely get a job in a sector where your gender is underrepresented?

    Cannot speak for everyone as different people take different careers paths but for me that would mean I spent 4 years in University studying a discipline only to come out and be told oh no you have to retrain into another sector because of your gender? That makes no sense.


  • Options
    #54
    Economics101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Females get on average higher Leaving Cert grades and thus CAO points. Therefore they will have an advantage choosing high points programmes such as Medicine. They dominate the entry numbers into nursing and teaching, which between them account for a lot of third-level students. So its almost mathematically inevitable that males will dominate numerically in some other areas. The poor eejits have to go somewhere! So why the obsession with certain types of engineering?


  • Options
    #55
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    I assume we are generally talking about targets here. They are not quotas and don't even necessarily mean that more of one gender will be pushed over another.

    It just means they are actively looking to encourage people from a gender not traditionally associated with whatever role or sector.

    If you went and studied for 4 years and struggle to get a job you'd be better off looking at why you are sh*t at your job (or at least why you are bad at interviews) rather than blaming some gender quota bogeymen (or women!).


  • Options
    #56
    LegallyAbroad
    Registered Users Posts: 352 ✭✭LegallyAbroad


    km991148 wrote: »
    I assume we are generally talking about targets here. They are not quotas and don't even necessarily mean that more of one gender will be pushed over another.

    It just means they are actively looking to encourage people from a gender not traditionally associated with whatever role or sector.

    If you went and studied for 4 years and struggle to get a job you'd be better off looking at why you are sh*t at your job (or at least why you are bad at interviews) rather than blaming some gender quota bogeymen (or women!).

    This too. If you can't get in to the 50% or 66% quota available to your gender you're probably not great in the first place.


  • Options
    #57
    LegallyAbroad
    Registered Users Posts: 352 ✭✭LegallyAbroad


    the-island-man wrote: »
    Cannot speak for everyone as different people take different careers paths but for me that would mean I spent 4 years in University studying a discipline only to come out and be told oh no you have to retrain into another sector because of your gender? That makes no sense.

    You could still apply to the 66% of the sector available to your gender?


  • Options
    #58
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭the-island-man


    km991148 wrote: »
    If you went and studied for 4 years and struggle to get a job you'd be better off looking at why you are sh*t at your job (or at least why you are bad at interviews) rather than blaming some gender quota bogeymen (or women!).

    Are we still talking about a hypothetical scenario or is that directed at me because you think i'm a college graduate with a chip on my shoulder?


  • Options
    #59
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 497 ✭✭the-island-man


    LegallyAbroad wrote: »
    You could still apply to the 66% of the sector available to your gender?

    I think you're mixing up a gender target on the percentage of applicants for a role with a gender target on the company's employees. You're assuming that more than 66% of the existing employees in the company are not already the same gender as you!


  • Options
    #60
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,288 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    the-island-man wrote: »
    I think you're mixing up a gender target on the percentage of applicants for a role with a gender target on the company's employees. You're assuming that more than 66% of the existing employees in the company are not already the same gender as you!

    You’re getting angry about losing a mythical job to a woman in a company that doesn’t exist. You need to calm down mate


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    the-island-man wrote: »
    Are we still talking about a hypothetical scenario or is that directed at me because you think i'm a college graduate with a chip on my shoulder?

    The whole post was about quota Vs target (because you flip between these words).

    The part you quoted was a generalisation, but I didn't want to quote you because it wasn't specifically directed at you.

    Of course, now that you have said that, I am of course wondering if you do actually have a chip on your shoulder (but I didn't really think you did until you said those words!).


Advertisement