Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[Belz...]

Thank you for your constructive perspective on this topic, buddy-of-my-former-self.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why? And how?

Why? I'd think that was obvious. Because you don't want to be a workplace that discriminates.

How? Well you identify the issues and fix them. I don't know what the problems are for this made up hypothetical company.

 

[Belz...]

Why? I'd think that was obvious. Because you don't want to be a workplace that discriminates.

Disparity does not imply discrimination. I didn't get into hairstyling because it's nowhere near where my interests lie.

How? Well you identify the issues and fix them.

Yes, obviously. But that's rather vague. How do they do it in real life?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

*I do know of one (anecdotal) case of reverse racism: a colleague of mine was on an explicit "diversity" fellowship, based on pulling himself up by his bootstraps from one of the poorest ghettos in the country. Every year, without fail, his fellowship would be rescinded because some knucklehead in HR noticed that he was a white male on a diversity ticket, and it would take a personal memo from his boss's boss's boss to get it reinstated.

This bit sounds great (except for the rescinding bit). There's no reason why AA should be only for minorities or gender-based. My main beef with diversity in companies is that it's mostly about trying to find find people of a particular demographic who are the closest to everybody else in the organisation and hiring them rather than actually promoting true diversity.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Disparity does not imply discrimination. I didn't get into hairstyling because it's nowhere near where my interests lie.

Oh it implies it. It might not prove it but it certainly implies it. Hairdressing is an interesting one. The world's 'best' hairdressers seem to be a majority male and yet the industry is 90% women. Something odd is going on there and it doesn't seem to be that men can't do the job. I don't know if any study has been done but I'd bet hairdressing is hugely discriminatory in all sorts of ways.

Yes, obviously. But that's rather vague. How do they do it in real life?

Lots of things. For example, you can have more flexible working hours, working from home, or other different working practices. You can go out and actively promote your company and its opportunities in the communities of interest. You can encourage schools and universities to be more balanced. It really depends on the specifics of the situation.

 

[Belz...]

Oh it implies it. It might not prove it but it certainly implies it.

In logic, "implies" means that one necessarily means the other. If you think so, then you are saying that the only possible explanation for disparity is discrimination, and I can't possibly agree with that.

The world's 'best' hairdressers seem to be a majority male and yet the industry is 90% women. Something odd is going on there and it doesn't seem to be that men can't do the job.

Nobody said anything about not being able to do the job.

Lots of things. For example, you can have more flexible working hours, working from home, or other different working practices. You can go out and actively promote your company and its opportunities in the communities of interest. You can encourage schools and universities to be more balanced. It really depends on the specifics of the situation.

Thank you. That's actually very helpful.

 

[blutoski]

Affirmative Action is one of the things I'm happy to admit being wrong about.

Ditto. Although, it predated my involvement with Skepticism. Basically, my dad is very conservative, so I was 'raised' to regard AA as "Pinko ******" but my real world observations of mistreatment of visible and religious minorities made it clear that there was justification.

Later, my thoughts were reinforced when I did computer science and learned modelling. Basically, I tried to estimate how many generations it would take for visible minority (black, Asian, Jewish) applicants to my father's golf course to be accepted in proportion to their population percentage without some sort of systematic influence. Something like 2500 years, was the typical output of the model.

The key problem was not just overt racism, but rather, institutional inertia. In the specific case of my dad's golf course, they prioritize immediate family members of current members in good standing over outside applicants. In principle, this is a neutral rule. However, since the golf course barred blacks, asians, and non-Christians from its inception until about 1980 (when laws were introduced to prohibit this), the starting point is that white christians have an institutional bias in the admission process.

They even have a contingency fund set up to subsidize 'deserving' family member applicants who can't afford it. Meaning, a black outsider applicant who is technically better qualified (able to pay, more likely to use the facilities) will lose out to the unemployed white nephew of a member due to the organization's legacy institutional bias. And, it's worth mentioning there's a waiting list, so outsiders are almost never accepted. The primary route in for blacks, asians, and non-christians is mixed marriage or cross cultural adoption. Thus the 2500 year inertia, according to my model.

My son will be an interesting test case if he suddenly decides he's interested in golf, as he's a black man who is descended from a white member.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you for your own take on this, blutoski.

Something like 2500 years, was the typical output of the model.

A mere blink of an eye in geological terms!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nobody said anything about not being able to do the job.

Thats the usual direction of travel first its group x can't do this then when its shown they can its that they dont want to but its amazing how when barriers are removed we see people entering these fields from all persuasions and doing just fine.

I doubt we've hit any biological preference yet. Social preferences maybe but they can change.

 

[Belz...]

I doubt we've hit any biological preference yet.

Why do you doubt it? It's not a secret, for instance, that women skip promotion opportunities, work fewer hours and take more vacations to spend time with their family. That affects yearly earnings, for example, which is the oft-mentioned and mis-named "wage gap".

 

[blutoski]

Why do you doubt it? It's not a secret, for instance, that women skip promotion opportunities, work fewer hours and take more vacations to spend time with their family. That affects yearly earnings, for example, which is the oft-mentioned and mis-named "wage gap".

Yes, I think you're right to point out that the wage gap probably isn't always a prejudicial evaluation of a woman's contribution. Although, there are studies that show this is at least part of the problem. It may be linked to below in the form of predictive anticipation of gender based future performance, which actually is unfair prejudice.

So: I think a question about the fact that women take more time off for family care would be: is it a biological predisposition, or is it responding to cultural expectations? It could be specifically filling in a gap where their husband is not willing to be a stay at home dad for reasons of pride, even though asking the missus to take a hit could be a net negative for the household finances. My father, for example, has never held a vacuum cleaner, and this is pretty representative. Yet, despite it being a common division of labour, I'm sure that's not biology. Same with our perception of who should be the household child caregiver versus wage earner. I think we're generations away from shaking that.

For my family it was a no brainer: missus blutoski earns significantly more than I do wage wise (Well, I make more technically, but much of my income is passive and accumulates into a retirement nestegg; so it continues to generate revenue whether I'm employed or not, which makes less household impact if I pull back on my career and let her advance). I continue to be fascinated by how being a male who eschewed promotions to focus on his kids impacted my perceived social and career values. I have been asked if I wear a dress, too, for example.

Like I said, we're a few generations away from shaking this, and I think it is quite sufficient to attribute some of the wage gap to prejudice through this independent mechanism.

 

[Craig B]

What if only 2% of the applicants are women? That certainly should factor into the judgmen ...

I'm trying to make sure we're considering all of the factors rather than jump to a conclusion.

Good. If a company is known not to recruit from a particular subset of the population, do you expect jobseekers belonging to that category to waste their time applying for work there? Early last century the ironworks that then existed near where I am sitting now in Glasgow was known not to employ Catholics. Do you think that Catholics applied for work there in large numbers? I suspect not.

By the way, when WW2 broke out the government instructed the company in question to offer work regardless of religion - and Catholic applicants duly turned up. Recruitment policy affects applicant profile. It's not a one way street.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I think you're right to point out that the wage gap probably isn't always a prejudicial evaluation of a woman's contribution. Although, there are studies that show this is at least part of the problem.

Based on what I've read, most of the 23% difference is personal choices. I think there remains around a 6% discrepancy when you take that into consideration, but it doesn't mean that the remaining 6% is discrimination.

I think a question about the fact that women take more time off for family care would be: is it a biological predisposition, or is it responding to cultural expectations?

I personally think that the two are difficult to fully decouple. How society constructed itself in various parts of the world was probably just a continuation of how the individual tribes lived, and that surely was informed in a major way by biology.

Think about what would happen if Seahorses developed civilisation. Chances are, males would still take care of the babies and would be even expected to, until it becomes not only a social norm, but perhaps even a law.

If we still had humans in the wild we could check this hypothesis, but I think it's pretty solid. Regardless of the huge variations in culture, women and men have (historically) similar roles pretty much across the board. The rest just developed from there. And even if we somehow remove those social expectations and cultural elements, you still have biological drives to contend with. I think in the nature-vs-nurture debate, a lot of people side with one or the other, and under-estimate the influence of the opposite.

I have been asked if I wear a dress, too, for example.

Well, that's ridiculous. Everyone is an individual who makes choices. The "biological incentive" hypothesis only applies to the general case, not to individual ones.

 

[Belz...]

Good. If a company is known not to recruit from a particular subset of the population, do you expect jobseekers belonging to that category to waste their time applying for work there?

No. Do we know whether this is going on, generally?

 

[Craig B]

No. Do we know whether this is going on, generally?

If you don't know either, how can you

certainly ... factor into the judgement​

this important consideration?

 

[Belz...]

If you don't know either, how can you

certainly ... factor into the judgement​

this important consideration?

Well, I'm not doing that, so that's an odd question.

 

[Craig B]

Well, I'm not doing that, so that's an odd question.

If it can't be done, there's little point in anyone observing that a place which employs few women doesn't have many female applicants, because we won't be able to distinguish between cause and effect.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Are you seriously saying you're not aware of any places with such policies? I'm not saying that _all_ places aim for 50% women. I'm saying that several do.

No I'm not aware of any Governments that mandate a 50% female rate on certain professions. You keep claiming it, but after repeated requests to prove it, to give numbers, you still haven't done so, thus I can only conclude that you can't and are talking out your hindquarters.

I said FOR THE PLACES THAT AIM FOR 50%. Not those with different quotas.

And you have repeatedly failed to show that such laws exist in these places, despite being asked to.

What bias is that, now?

Clearly the bias you have against trades people, or should we say, the "lesser educated".

If classes are mixed, how is there a long way to go? What way is there to go?

Just opening up classes doesn't create an atmosphere where girls feel free to peruse those options. Convincing parents that their daughter would achieve well and that it's a good thing, making sure that you have teachers that are genuinely enthusiastic about having girls in their classes. Getting the girls themselves to understand that they have a viable option in the trades rather then it being man's work. There are a lot of things that schools can still do, all of which is *gasp* affirmative action.

Which part of AA does exactly that?

The parts such as those mentioned above. The parts you keep ignoring in your focusing only on Quotas.

Removing a previously held privilege by selecting people based on the colour of their skin is.

Again you show your misunderstanding of AA. and your refusal to try and understand it beyond your own strawman version of it.

What if you only get 8% of applicants who are men? How do you deal with that?

Then you look at why you are only getting 8%, why aren't men interested? Primary reasons that studies have found are that men that do what is traditionally women's work are seen as less masculine, that the pay for such jobs is lower than equally skilled "men's work" that they could be doing instead, and that the work conditions are sub standard to other equivalent "men's work." These things can be combated in similar ways to how AA works in the more male dominated workplaces.

It doesn't force them to consider black people. It forces them to hire them. How do you know that the ones they hire would otherwise be the best candidates? How does that work? Seriously, educate me.

No it doesn't force them to hire them. It makes then compare black people at the same level as white people rather then at a lower level, and as a result more black people will naturally be at the top of the listing, at which point, they'll get hired. Nothing in the law says that if a black person applies, they must be hired, nor does it demand that individual positions be filled by blacks or women. What it does by creating the situation were a company must have those hirings is to create the situation where people in those classes get a fair look in against those that have traditionally had the inside track because of their race and gender by taking race and gender out of the equation and letting the best be selected. This is how it works for most real companies.

No it doesn't. It's a specific situation where it just happens that the white guy was more qualified. How does it follow that black people can't be more qualified? That makes no sense at all.

But the specific situation is a strawman because it isn't a real world situation, it's a concocted one that doesn't happen, unless the situation is that none of the black people who apply are as qualified as the white people, but the company is determined to hire a black person regardless, which is not how AA is meant to be applied.

In reality, there would be enough black people with qualifications at least as good as the white people that applied, and then it comes down to who the company feels would be the best person for the job. Your white guy wouldn't lose out to a black guy with less qualifications and who barely scrapped through, but rather to one that was as least as qualified as he was if not more so.

 

[Belz...]

No I'm not aware of any Governments that mandate a 50% female rate on certain professions.

Well, if you read the Canadian Employment Equity Act, it mentions that employers targeted by the Act must "ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce, or those segments of the Canadian workforce that are identifiable by qualification, eligibility or geography and from which the employer may reasonably be expected to draw employees."

It follows that if 50% of the workforce is female, they must have 50% female employees, but you are correct that they do not specifically set the proportion in law.

And you have repeatedly failed to show that such laws exist in these places, despite being asked to.

In order to fail, one must try. I hadn't tried yet because I thought these laws were common knowledge.

Clearly the bias you have against trades people, or should we say, the "lesser educated".

Again, this is a thinly veiled accusation, but you are yet to tell me exactly what you mean by that. What sort of bias are we talking about, and what makes you think that I have it?

Just opening up classes doesn't create an atmosphere where girls feel free to peruse those options. Convincing parents that their daughter would achieve well and that it's a good thing, making sure that you have teachers that are genuinely enthusiastic about having girls in their classes. Getting the girls themselves to understand that they have a viable option in the trades rather then it being man's work. There are a lot of things that schools can still do, all of which is *gasp* affirmative action.

Ok, thanks for the information.

The parts such as those mentioned above. The parts you keep ignoring in your focusing only on Quotas.

Again with the confrontational language. I'm not "ingnoring" anything. I'm focusing on the part of AA I'm opposed to. It'd be pretty silly for me to address stuff I already agree with, especially after discussing them here.

Again you show your misunderstanding of AA.

"You're ignorant" is a poor way to remove said ignorance. But it sure helps you stroke your own ego by feeling superior.

Primary reasons that studies have found are that men that do what is traditionally women's work are seen as less masculine, that the pay for such jobs is lower than equally skilled "men's work" that they could be doing instead, and that the work conditions are sub standard to other equivalent "men's work."

The first part may still have biological roots, so I'm not sure you can ever break even there. As for the rest, it's market forces. Some jobs are seen as worth more.

No it doesn't force them to hire them.

What happens when you fail to meet the quota, then? Won't they be asked to hire more minorities, at which point they will indeed be forced to hire them?

But the specific situation is a strawman because it isn't a real world situation, it's a concocted one that doesn't happen, unless the situation is that none of the black people who apply are as qualified as the white people

That is a terrible interpretation. It could just be that you have ONE job open and two candidates, or that you only have one job left and several candidates, and the last two candidates you're considering are the ones I mentioned. Of course that happens in real life.

 

[banquetbear]

Well, if you read the Canadian Employment Equity Act, it mentions that employers targeted by the Act must "ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce, or those segments of the Canadian workforce that are identifiable by qualification, eligibility or geography and from which the employer may reasonably be expected to draw employees."

...you've skipped an important part of the act, which adds context, and changes the meaning. The full section of the act:

"5 Every employer shall implement employment equity by

(a) identifying and eliminating employment barriers against persons in designated groups that result from the employer’s employment systems, policies and practices that are not authorized by law; and

(b) instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations as will ensure that persons in designated groups achieve a degree of representation in each occupational group in the employer’s workforce that reflects their representation in

(i) the Canadian workforce, or

(ii) those segments of the Canadian workforce that are identifiable by qualification, eligibility or geography and from which the employer may reasonably be expected to draw employees."

The act requires employers to institute positive policy and practices, and to make reasonable accommodations to ensure designated groups receive a degree of representation. Unless you mangle the act (which is what you did) there is no way you could read this and assume that it says "if 50% of the workforce is female, they must have 50% female employees".

It follows that if 50% of the workforce is female, they must have 50% female employees, but you are correct that they do not specifically set the proportion in law.

All you needed to say was:

but you are correct that they do not specifically set the proportion in law.

What you think "follows" from the act doesn't actually follow from the actual act.

In order to fail, one must try. I hadn't tried yet because I thought these laws were common knowledge.

The laws aren't common knowledge, because they don't appear to exist. So would you actually like to try? Maybe your "common knowledge" isn't that common.