I thought this is considered illegal. Seems like Australia is going backwards.
https://www.seek.com.au/job/76233184?tracking=SHR-WEB-Shared…
Only accepting applicants who identify as female or non binary.
I've reported this job ad to Seek on grounds of discrimination.
You will also bring:
tertiary engineering qualification or extensive trades maintenance experience
You're being too harsh on him. Reading is hard these days!
@GnarlyKnuckles: Sad isnt it… Legal discrimination, like apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow Laws in Usa. Going backwards…
@mrvaluepack: Apartheid was slightly worse than nasty words being said or edgy job ads lol. The Constitutional changes plus rise of alt right/popularism is concerning to me.
@Cave Fire: Lost of job opportunities leads to financial and depression issues, which in turns leads to other social issues.
@mrvaluepack: Nothing has ever changed from day one of humanity: Man wants sex: He has to pay! Pay all you have or die!
Bill Clinton got donations
Donald trump gets donations
Lost of job opportunities…
Loss of opportunity is exactly what they are trying to address.
Quotas are a clumsy method but many jobs have been exclusively male or male dominated for generations.
Ideally, taking the best available graduates would shift the balance appropriately but sometimes further action is necessary to overcome institutionalised bias.
It wouldn't make much difference. I've seen plenty of qualified muppets who were next to useless. The place in question here is no exception.
Did you even read the post. It says suitably qualified.
Suitably qualified; but males need not apply.
wtf?
Exactly
Perhaps we should see the same in other female dominated industries.
What about a job posting specifically asking for male Occupational Therapists, Nurses, beauticians, cosmetic injectables - the list goes on.
There are heaps of female dominated industries and no one seems to care that there aren't men in these industries.
It's either you want equality or you don't , and this isn't it. Hire the person based on their ability to do the job only for gods sake. Female / Male / gay / straight / trans or even flying spaghetti monster it really shouldn't matter.
Yes, all women are unqualified muppets. Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious to all.
'Yes, all women are unqualified muppets. Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious to all.'
It saddens me that such a sarcastic and utterly substanceless/meaningless/child-like comment such as this one garners so many upvotes. Perhaps one of you champs might like to explain what your perceived connection is, between my comment and this bizarre and irrelevant retort peeled off by larndis?
Try to use your words to actually contribute something meaningful, rather than 'voting' with a 'baaaa', like sheep.
Perhaps one of you champs might like to explain what your perceived connection is, between my comment and this bizarre and irrelevant retort peeled off by larndis?
Their comment isn't responding to yours, and was made before your post above it.
Their response was to
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15330803/redir
No champs needed, just a little less self importance.
'Their comment isn't responding to yours, and was made before your post above it.'
This is simply wrong/incorrect.
Check your dates and times.
Check your dates and times.
not sure if you're just desperate for attention but
Landis response here
- https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15331755/redir
02/06/2024 - 08:22
which is in resonse to the post one level up in the hierarchy of response comments here
- https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15330803/redir
01/06/2024 - 21:11
You're earliest post under this 'branch' of comments is here (which they aren't responding to)
- https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15338887/redir
04/06/2024 - 00:37
and here (which they also aren't responding to)
- https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15338893/redir
04/06/2024 - 00:41
both a ~40 hours after their initial post
explain what your perceived connection is
so in summary, there's none
Time to step down off your 'outrage' soapbox
@SBOB: Get a load of this guy, he's taken a liking to me and thinks everything I post is about him. I should be flattered, right?
@GnarlyKnuckles: Maybe get someone to explain to you how replies work mate. My comment was posted two days before yours, so not sure how you decided there was a connection.
The way you behave on here, it's really hard to believe any employer wouldn't just snap you up! I better you're an absolute pleasure to work with.
Lol funny how people complain about diversity because its not hiring the best for the job, but a lot of hiring in corporate world is "it's not what you know but who you know". Why don't i ever see people complaining about mates hiring mates?
I think because hiring an unknown has more risks than hiring someone when you know how they work. Better the devil you know and all that.
At least in the cases where you've worked with that person, and not just helping a friend of a friend.
It's ok if you're a dude and hiring other dudes friend! But you can't let a woman in! What if she makes you change some stuff that's sexist or makes you focus more on women? Gross!
But you're completely right. A lot of hiring has a lot of bias and discrimination built in. Hence why measures like the above are important to help stop it or to reverse it.
@DingoBilly: Are peeps seriously suggesting here that women do not also engage in the whole 'jobs for mates' thing/women don't hire their (female) friends?
You would have to be an absolute moron to believe that.
@GnarlyKnuckles: My partner (female) manages maybe 30 people total or so and yeah it's definitely a thing.
A decent amount of them are friends of friends, family members / mates of other colleagues.
She prefers to hire people that have been recommended to her as she finds there's less of a chance of duds first of all, but their work ethic is generally decent because they don't want to make whoever got them the job look like an idiot.
So even if it's not the fact you want to give your friends a job, it does make sense to take the employee you've got the most info on. Better the devil you know after all.
'Hence why measures like the above are important to help stop it or to reverse it.'
Unfortunately you seem to have missed the fundamental point that 'measures like the above' enshrine discrimination in law here in Australia, and have done so for decades.
In one fell swoop, they undo all the 'good work' achieved by laws fought hard to enact, that made discrimination illegal when hiring.
Sigh.
There seems little point continuing to engage here. The overwhelming sentiment here, bizarre and tragic though it is, is clearly this:
'Discrimination is a bad thing, unless it is firmly geared towards/against white, able-bodied, heterosexual males; because that demographic has had it far too good for far too long. So to 'even things out', now they need to be openly and legally discriminated against/punished; even the young ones, who are only just becoming men now … even though those kids had nothing whatsoever to do with anything that happened in the past. They must take on the role of 'sacrificial pawns/lambs'; for the greater good.'
This is essentially the same thing as 'intergenerational punishment', which is practiced legally in some backwards countries. In short, it amounts to children of criminals being severely punished—often for their whole lives—after their parents die, to 'repent' for the sins of those parents.
Does that sound like a fair system to you?
because their mates got them their job
'Why don't i ever see people complaining about mates hiring mates?'
It must be because you are living under a rock, and have been for decades. People don't just 'complain' about this, they get charged with it, and prosecuted. Did you seriously not know that?
You don't hire the best for the job. Most cases you just need a qualified seat warmer.
You've demonstrated why these kind of positive discriminations are pushed from higher up and exemptions are granted. If you were the hiring manager, suitable females/non-binary would have been overlooked by you due to your discrimination.
Yo Ug boots, re:
'You've demonstrated … (etc.)'
You have demonstrated your capacity for rational thought, on a scale of 1 to 10. If I told you what I thought that number was, I might be banned from commenting for 3 days—so I will leave it up to others to surmise.
Realise this though:
'Positive' discrimination is still discrimination, and once any form of discrimination is officially sanctioned, the floodgates are open.
@GnarlyKnuckles: Keep projecting if it makes you feel good. I really don't care :). I won't try to further embarrass you as you're doing a fine job without my or anyone else's help.
Relax :)
@GnarlyKnuckles: Women literally face negative discrimination every time they go for an interview (read up on unconscious bias) this is why 'postive' discrimination is usually not. Its usually an evening of the playing fields. And absolutely I would want to see men given more opportunities in female dominated industries as well.
What were you planning on bringing to the game? Your excellent written comprehension skills? Your love of excessive punctuation? Your ability to leap to tall conclusions in a single bound?
Chuckle!!!
Oh come off it. It's clear that BlueScope (and probably that entire industry) has been dominated by a male workforce, and are looking to change things by specifically encouraging and prioritising a female (or non-binary) hiring round.
They've done the right thing to seek exemption because they know the conservative snowflakes* will get up in arms about protecting their "highly endangered and systematically disadvantaged" group.
This is a good thing for society (remember, women represent 50% of it), and anyone getting upset with this needs a good head check.
*I'm now coopting this word to describe the right-leaning as they seem to be the ones upset by everything these days.
It's discrimination plain and simple, and if you don't have an issue with discrimination then I'm fine with that but it seems you do have a problem with 'a male workforce' so why are you biased against one particular demographic?
And is Bluscope's HR dept so lazy they can't quietly weed out capable and competent white males in order to fulfil their agenda quotas without making a song and dance about it? Or do they know full we'll that a qualified person my accuse them of discrimination if a less qualified person gets the job they were going for so they are covering their arses?
Nice to know we can apply to get the law suspended willy-nilly.
If a Christian or Muslim school wanted to advertise that only Christians or Muslims need apply would they be given the same concessions by government?
I'm all for real diversity but as someone else said, when I hop on that plane I need to know that the pilot is there because they were the most qualified person for the position and not because someone's agenda need a quota filled.
If a Christian or Muslim school wanted to advertise that only Christians or Muslims need apply would they be given the same concessions by government?
They use subtle phrases like 'respectful of the faith'
Same end result.
@SBOB: Maybe. But my question was would they be given an official government exemption from the anti-discrimination act if they applied for it?
@EightImmortals: The fact there's a process to gain exemptions from the act should kind of tell you that it's not uncommon to apply for exemptions for applicable cases.
A company with over 16k employees and some get outraged over a single employment advertisement. Seems like just another day in the weaponised outrage news cycle.
This isn't 'new'.
Eg
https://discriminationclaims.com.au/bluescope-steel-given-gr…
https://saineslegal.com.au/2021/07/employer-gender-equality-…
@SBOB: Cheers, fair point. I'd still be keen to know if any exemptions have been given to benefit a category other than female or transgender or aboriginal?
@EightImmortals: Well as has been stated religious groups are legally allowed to discriminate, so you can bet that almost always goes against Lgbtiq people, unmarried women etc.
Not to mention that the whole reason that many industries are male dominated is because anyone not a man (particularly the white, heterosexual variety) was pretty much banned from working in those professions/workplaces up until a few decades ago, or even studying to get the qualifications needed (women being forced to resign from government jobs once they got married etc). Even when those policies were overturned, you were still left with workplaces where every person in any sort of position of power was a man (usually a white, hetero man). And every person who had the necessary experience and qualifications to join that workplace on 'merit' was, you guessed it, a man.
And even when a woman or whoever managed to break in and start working in one of these places, they weren't exactly welcomed with open arms in many cases, right? So you have a system that perpetuates itself.
In this case, they seem to have identified that, and decided that they need to discriminate against the status quo (men) in order to get a more gender balanced workforce. Note they are aiming for more BALANCE here - I guarantee there will still be more than 50% of the workforce being male. The open discrimination that benefitted men in the past (and the less open discrimination that benefits them now) has never been about promoting balance, it's been about protecting dominance and privilege.
@Birdseye: +1
Good to see companies in industries with gender imbalances are going beyond equality and aiming for equity
@Birdseye: My god. When are you clowns with your broken records going to grow up, stop living in decades past, and move on?
It's as though you think the 'answer' to addressing discrimination that occurred decades ago is to swing the pendulum the other way, and perpetuate discrimination in the other direction for a few decades.
Sounds mad, right?
Or not to you? Is this what it is about for you? 'Generational revenge'? You want our sons to suffer/get discriminated against, so that our daughters can 'rise above them', to 'even things out'? Even though none of these kids were around in decades gone by, and in fact it's all about your angst/hang-ups, not theirs?
Ludicrous.
You should be advocating equality, not 'positive discrimination', or any other form of discrimination. Surely that is obvious? Get over yourself and your jaded life history/past, and think about the innocent people (the adolescents/young adults) you are selfishly imposing your misguided ideologies onto.
Sheesh.
@GnarlyKnuckles: Yes, because things that happened in the past have no influence or impact on things that happen now 🙄
It would be funny watching a group of people who have benefitted from discrimination for literal centuries scream blue murder the moment they get the short end of the stick, if it wasn't so bloody sad.
@Birdseye: Yo B-eye, re:
'… a group of people who have benefitted from discrimination for literal centuries'
Newsflash: Humans currently do not live for 'centuries'. The 'group' you allude to does not exist, they are long dead. What you are advocating is discrimination against groups of young people currently actually living/here/now, based on your bitterness about historical things that happened in past 'literal centuries'.
Can you really not understand that that is not something that you (or anyone) should be advocating?
@EightImmortals: LOL. You mean like preference being given to men to get more of them in the nursing or primary school professions, where they are under represented?
Hell no.
@SBOB: They don’t even need to use subtle phrases because it’s perfectly legal for religious schools to discriminate under s38 of the SDA
“Nothing in paragraph 14(1)(a) or (b) or 14(2)(c) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first - mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.”
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda19…
I'm all for real diversity
These exemptions exist because many industries have failed at organically achieving 'real' diversity. If you don't believe entrenched sexism is a problem in Australia in 2024, read the rest of this thread. Imagine these people are making recruitment decisions.
@larndis: So what percentage of the oil drilling crew should be women and transgenders in order to make for the most efficient and profitable operation?
@larndis: Guess you don't have a clue about the steel industry too.
The diversity is 'so low' because it's a very heavily labour intensive industry that just doesn't favour or be the preference of women to have/want these types of jobs, same goes for other similar types of industries.
Not every job is made for anyone to be able to do but if it is, it's usually some type of concession that is made at the cost of 'diversity' i.e. lowering the thresholds for certain groups to meet the original standards that everybody needs to meet.
These women are already setup to fail by the H.R. departments before they even walk in the front gate of these places because of the methods/standards they use to recruit them and it's quite sad to see.
FYI, Bluescope Westernport's H.R department consists of all women.
@larndis: The question is, why (tf) should private industries be compelled to "organically achieve 'real' diversity" in the first place?
If the best people for a job, and the most highly qualified people for a job come from a particular demographic, they should be the peeps hired for that job.
This is not rocket science, and anyone who does understand that is a straight up moron.
For example, imagine a 3.5-foot midget rocking up to a job interview for an advertised position as a flight attendant/air host/hostess. He/she can't reach the overhead lockers, can't hand a drink to anyone not in an aisle seat. Are you clowns suggesting that 'positive discrmination' should kick in here, and get him/her the job, despite there being numerous better-qualified applicants?
No?
What then?
Is it a 'sliding scale?
At what point does it become not about the best qualified person for the job?
@GnarlyKnuckles: If you can't comprehend there could be any benefit from diversifying the workplace, there is no point engaging in debate. Why don't you ask Bluescope why they want to hire more women? I didn't come up with the policy.
White men have not done a good job of hiring the 'best person for the job'. If you can't accept that, you are part of the problem. If you have suggestions about how to better address entrenched sexism, stop wasting your time here and get in touch with Bluescope HR.
@EightImmortals: Hmm, a reverse discrimination dick. In its natural habitat. You clearly don't get it and likely never will.
@EightImmortals: Something people overlook is that in many of these situations in male dominated industries they will choose males over females whether or not they are as qualified. They will use things like how well they will fit the workplace culture. Also because they mostly see males doing the work, they will assume males will be better at it. All of the attributes they assume make people better workers come from males.
It's not ideal to need to proactively hire females, but often things won't change unless you actively do that because of existing biases. I think they are recognising they have these biases and that there are qualified females out there who can contribute positively to their company who are not getting hired. Most places will opt to not hire anyone if there are no qualified candidates and re-advertise, so I don't think there's a risk of hiring someone unqualified.
I would like to know in advance if there is a job I have no chance of getting so I don't waste my time applying, but perhaps others like wasting their time.
I'm supportive of them doing this in female dominated industries to get more males too. Even in female dominated industries though, males are generally overrepresented in leadership positions relative to the percentage of males in the workforce. Males are perceived as being better leaders and male attributes have been considered better for leadership. Some people still strongly believe that to be true, others have unconscious biases - not just males, females too.
I think they are recognising they have these biases and that there are qualified females out there who can contribute positively to their company who are not getting hired.
So they don't trust themselves not to be bias against woman… hence they need an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act so that there can be no chance of accidently hiring a man. lol
So they don't trust themselves not to be bias against woman…
This is literally why discrimination rules/policies/laws exist. Because people have shown over and over that they cannot be trusted not to be biased against a minority
@Miss B: You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination. The disadvantaged employee has to be better prepared AND not be disseminated against at point of hiring. Putting someone in the role that isn't ready for it is not a good thing for the individual, company or industry. Failing to address the bias in the company, and then just forcing a quota only serves to increase resentment without addressing the underlying problem. There are no shortcuts that don't cause harm.
@syousef: They're not going to remove the bias without getting women in. It's not ideal, but they're going to get some capable women in and it's likely not going to be great for those women honestly. The ad being for female/non-binary only should tell them that. Once they get some women in this way, they may be able to start shifting those biases and getting women in more organically.
I don't think you need to worry about men being discriminated against there, they almost exclusively hire men whether they're the best for the job or not.
@Miss B: It's not a question of whether it's ideal. It's a question of whether you are actually undermining the women you're putting in those positions. If they don't have the skill, or aren't the best fit, the resentment this creates actually sets women back.
As for telling me not to worry about men being discriminated against WHILST ADVOCATING FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MEN, you bet I'm going to worry about it. I have a daughter and a son and neither of them are served by MORE discrimination. They don't hire men exclusively anymore. It's gone the other way when you have exemptions in law for that. The idea that you can't remove the bias and discrimination so you just swing it in different directions is one of the most harmful concepts that unfortunately proliferates the modern workplace. You can't fight discrimination with discrimination, or hate with hate. You need to genuinely create an environment that is merit based, not merit based for-the boys or merit based for-the-girls. These policies are a step backwards, not forwards.
@syousef: You naturally assume that no women have the skill and that's why they're not being hired. I guarantee they could find women who are not only skilled, but have previously been passed over for a less skilled man. Now whether they will bother applying or not who knows, but I don't doubt for a second they exist.
This seems to be the only position on their site targeted towards female/non-binary applicants. In all of the others I'm sure there will continue to be plenty of bias towards men as is the status quo.
I do expect any woman hired to be bullied even if they are better than all of those around them at their job, just for being a woman, however they were hired. I honestly would not want to work somewhere like that, it takes a stronger woman than me. I respect those who are willing to take it on though. My sister worked in a male-dominated field for 15 years and it took a toll and it got to a point where she just couldn't do it any more. She had to be better, work harder and put up with constant abuse, harassment and discrimination. It honestly doesn't matter how you get hired it's just how it is. She's of course not the only woman I know who has experienced this, just the closest to me. I would think a large company like Bluescope would be able to reduce that a bit, but it will still be there.
My sister's now using her skills in a different field and she is actually valued and treated as a human and I love that for her. She loves what she does and outside those toxic environments (because this was MANY different workplaces) they can see how awesome she is, she was headhunted for her current position and had 3 employers (including her existing one) respectfully "fighting" for her. She's not a bottom of the barrel employee, but she was continually treated like one just because she was a woman.
So I honestly do not feel bad about a single position out of many being open to only female/non binary applicants.
You naturally assume that no women have the skill and that's why they're not being hired.
You naturally put words in my mouth I never said. The whole of your argument is built on this, and is one huge straw man. This is typical of the BS people who support this kind of argument engage in. Do better.
There are definitely fewer qualified female candidates in certain professions, so the pool of excellence from that gender is going to be smaller. Just as there are definitely fewer qualified male candidates in other professions - oh like teaching where men often don't last long due to constant unwarranted suspicion that they are predators. ("Choose the bear").
I have had colleagues and managers of both genders that were excellent and also some of both genders that were terrible. It isn't a gender thing. Selecting disproportionately large numbers from a smaller talent pool guarantees you run out of good candidates and start employing middling ones, then terrible ones. For example if you have 100 men and 20 women applying for 40 jobs and you decide on a 50% quote, you employ the top 20% of men, and all the women regardless of competence. To avoid this issue you need to ensure 50% of the qualifications are earnt women ON MERIT. You can afford some leeway for the circumstances of the candidate (such as disproportionate expectation to take on child rearing) but you can't short cut it with a stupid edict.
I am sick and tired of people who pretend to want equality and equality of opportunity when in fact they just want to change the group that is targeted by discrimination while actually increasing that discrimination. I have a daughter and a son, and I want BOTH to have opportunity and not be judged by chromosomes and genitals, or the sins of previous generations. I don't want either promoted past their level of competence, or without putting in the effort. It isn't good for them. It isn't good for the employer either.
'… and getting women in more organically.'
What do you mean by 'organically', in this context?
'I don't think you need to worry about men being discriminated against there, they almost exclusively hire men whether they're the best for the job or not.'
Good joke. Who told you that?
Putting someone in the role that isn't ready for it is not a good thing for the individual, company or industry.
Why do you assume the person isnt ready for the role? That is a huge assumption you are making and then all your arguments are based on this assumption
Ever read about the blind auditions done by orchestras? Suddenly they discovered that there were a lot of women (and other minorities) who were very much ready for the role but had not been selected for….reasons. The argument that 'if they were good enough then they would be picked anyway' is completely blown apart by the evidence.
Why do you assume the person isnt ready for the role?
I have seen some excellent women in professional roles in the workplace, and I've seen terrible ones. No different to males. But when you remove competence and ability as the primary qualifier for the role, and when you employ from a smaller pool (which is the problem you're trying to solve), why on earth would you assume competence, nevermind excellence?
I am not saying there are no competent women out there, or that there is no discrimination. I'm saying that the affirmative action approach doesn't solve the underlying sexism the employees are going to face, and that anything short of addressing that issue directly is not going to make things better, and in this case WILL make things worse. Employing by gender first then competence brings the competence into question.
@syousef: You are literally the reason these policies exist. You just can't conceive that a woman could be as capable as a man, or that hiring more women could improve the workplace.
Are you personally familiar with the HR policies of this organisation? Do you know what other initiatives they have in place to improve diversity and workforce culture? Do you have evidence that polices that address gender imbalance and discrimination against women have negative overall impacts?
If you genuinely want your daughter to have the same opportunities as your son, you should support anything that levels the playing field.
You are literally the reason these policies exist.You just can't conceive that a woman could be as capable as a man, or that hiring more women could improve the workplace.
You literally ignored what I wrote - where I conceded that I've worked with brilliant women - and wrote your own narrative of what you see being wrong with me, which has no bearing on reality nor what I actually said. You failed basic comprehension. Go troll someone else. I'm not engaging with someone who is so dishonest in their argument.
@syousef: If you concede that discrimination does exist, then you accept that women are missing out on jobs when they are the best qualified ON MERIT.
What alternative measures are you proposing to address this?
@larndis: Oh now you want to know what I think? After telling me I'm the reason these policies exist.
You address the actual sexism instead of adding to it. Checks and balances. Serious repercussions. Proper change of culture
@larndis: They're not "vague words" at all. I could present a detailed plan and you'd spend a tenth of the effort pretending to find fault without considering what I've actually said or how it could be implemented. You aren't arguing honestly and you will find fault with anything I say without considering it. You've already proven you're happy to put words in my mouth. You have no interest in equality. You just want to posture and feel superior. Frankly that just makes me sick. Go troll someone who cares.
@syousef: Are you an HR expert? Do you have experience developing and implementing policies to improve diversity and workplace culture? Do you have detailed knowledge of Bluescope's recruitment practices? Do you have data on the impact of their hiring polices? Have you contacted Bluescope to find out why they want to hire more women?
Like all the others shouting that 'this isn't how you address sexism' or 'this only leads to hiring the wrong person for the job' or 'no team has ever been better for having women in it' I'm guessing NO.
I'm sure most workplaces have merit-based hiring policies, including Bluescope. I suspect they do have checks and balances. Most likely, they have found that those things alone were not shifting the balance enough. As a business, they have made a decision to explicitly recruit more women. Suitably qualified women.
I expect they will review this policy to whether it is having the desired effect. Maybe they already have, and found it is. Maybe they have a whole suite of policies aimed at improving diversity and workplace culture, and this is just one small part of the picture.
Your insistence that a woman employed under this policy would not be competent IS the exact bias they are trying to overcome.
@larndis: I am not reading that, or engaging. See above. You only want me to tell you how to fix things so you can tell me whatever I say is irrelevant and that I'm not an expert, as if you are. And you want to keep repeating the lie that I'm the problem. You don't even seem to understand how toxic you are being. I don't play chess with pigeons.
@syousef: So you have no interest in the actual issues, or solutions. Go ahead, keep your head in the sand and be a part of the problem. I'm sure your daughter will thank you for it.
@larndis: I have no interest in your dishonest discourse. None. Zero. Nada. You've belittled and demonized me, ignored every argument I've made out of hand. Look up the pigeon playing chess meme - that's how you're behaving. You are getting from me exactly what you deserve. Label me any way you like. You're a bully, a troll, and low enough to try to throw my love of my daughter in my face, which is vile. Your attempt to present yourself as a moral authority is clownishly laughable. Given how you've acted, you have the social justice credibility of a scorpion. I couldn't care less what you think of me, and it couldn't be less than I think of you.
@syousef: Mate only one of us is being irrational here.
YOU have a problem with hiring women. Period. Because you've run out of anything semi-sensible to say, you have resorted to name calling. Very grown up.
I only hope you aren't responsible for hiring decisions.
@larndis: At no stage have I said I have a problem with hiring women. Again with putting words in my mouth. You might as well argue with yourself since you are incapable of arguing the points I am making. So go away you utter troll. GO HARRASS SOMEONE ELSE. Reported.
@syousef: Mate you haven't made a single point, your posts are unhinged ranting.
I was merely pointing out that your comments display the exact entrenched bias against women that this policy is designed to mitigate. That seems to have irrationally upset you, but in the absence of any actual knowledge, evidence or rational argument you have resorted to personal insults.
I haven't reported you, as this is the behaviour I expect from people like you. Anything to deflect from the gaping holes in your statements. 'Your posts are too short', 'your posts are too long', 'I do have the answers but I'm not going to share them with YOU'. Sure mate, whatever you say. I won't reply again. Maybe go have a lie down.
Yeah makes sense…in an application to clown school. Let's see if you keep your word and don't reply again.
@dtc: What a poor example you have made, you're comparing apples to oranges. Using one industry where physical attributes have absolutely no play in the skill that's required then trying to compare it to one where it plays a massive part in what's required.
@EightImmortals: No, what is discriminatory is a workforce that is obviously skewed toward one gender. Trying to balance that out is the opposite of discriminatory…
@EightImmortals: Discrimination in hiring isn't bad at all. It's what recruitment is all about, it's why you don't hire someone with no arms to lift boxes. It's why you hire people with experience using heavy machinery to use heavy machinery - so they don't kill themselves.
What you're talking about is when discrimination doesn't serve a purpose. Christian schools are absolutely able to discriminate and hire a Christian where the role needs one, you're generally going to find Christians teach bible studies and Muslims teach quran studies better than vice versa.
This specific discrimination is about a few things. For one it's employment marketing. If you're an experienced woman in mining, you go to work at BHP or Rio. Because they already have the best female employees and for females they're not going to wind up the token female who gets overlooked for promotions because you're never quite "one of the gang". The whole "you can't be who can't see" thing is real too, women want to work where there are other women. You're forgetting that the pilot has to actually want to work for you. If you're a great pilot, you're not going to work for an airline with a shit reputation. Bluescope wants the reputation of being a great place for women to work. And while 22% of people in mining are women, they're hoping to capture a bigger chunk of that pie. Unlike most other mining companies, who are all fighting over the other 78%.
Secondly, not everyone is a pilot. There are a bunch of maintenance managers. If they're all white men, then everyone underneath is reporting to white men. That makes it harder to hire women into those roles under them, compared to a company where there is a diverse mix of maintenance managers. Real diversity at that kind of level promotes a better wider team, because it's not just a pilot and a copilot, it could be hundreds of people working together.
There's also the safety record. The more women on the team the less isolated they feel and the more they can speak out against things specific to their gender. It's not surprise that FIFO mine sites had high levels of sexual harassment when they were male dominated, reduce disparity and you wind up with a safer workplace with less lawsuits to worry about. There's also plenty of stats that diverse teams are higher performing and safer. No individual has that kind of impact, there's no perfect maintenance manager that lifts the entire company (if they were that good, they don't apply for jobs via seek, they get headhunted).
So yeah, discrimination is fine to me, when it's the right kind of discrimination.
@freefall101: discrimination is a negative and two negatives don't make a positive, they'll just cause other problems.
@dowhatuwant2: I'm going to have to remember that one if I'm ever in court, sure I might have committed a crime but sending me to prison would be a negative and two negatives don't make a positive. I rest my case.
@freefall101: It's a good example really since sending you to prison doesn't in any way fix the wrong of the crime you committed just like affirmative action only makes discrimination worse since in most cases its an issue of hiring numbers being in line with applicant numbers. Hiring lesser qualified people of a certain group creates a logical stereotype that the group is more likely to be worse at their jobs since they were not hired based on merit. The only way to "fix" something like that if it indeed needs fixing is to increase the number of applicants from the group organically which takes a long time.
@dowhatuwant2: So do we just let criminals go?
One problem with fixing it is the old adage, "you can't be what you can't see". The best way to increase the number of applicants is to make it appear to be a safe, good field to work in for women. At the moment, I wouldn't want my daughter take a job working FIFO at a male dominated site.
There's also the problem that once you start tinkering to support more women at university to become engineers, there are complaints about that too. Or entry positions as apprentices, or even if you try run funded programs for girls in highschools without doing the same for boys. The stereotype never actually ends until women are in the job and doing a great job. It's not true that women aren't being hired based on merit, they absolutely have to have the skills to do the job.
BHP has led the way in this. They have dramatically increased the number of women (and first nations) employees in the workforce while maintaining their profits and output. While everyone is focusing on the single job, they're worried about the entire company and the proof is there that gender diversity doesn't hurt anything, it improves things.
@freefall101: You lack reading comprehension if your response to that is letting criminals go, also old adage my ass, can't find usage of that prior to 2011. I don't agree with "tinkering" at university, or at school in general for that matter.
The hard truth is that boys and girls don't NEED to do the same jobs at all. Generally they are better at different things, if you look at school results it wont reflect the differences accurately because they literally changed the school system by doing things like putting essays in maths classes to get girls better grades which has really just resulted in a worse schooling system country wide. But in terms of objective not subjective subjects boys achieve at a higher level than girls. Not coincidentally it is roles that use those objective subjects (maths, physics, programming) where women are not as prevalent, as well as undesirable roles in general like FIFO since there is more expectation on men to provide. Expecting equitable outcomes from equal opportunity is not logical when we aren't actual equal in terms of potential.
For those who don't want to bother reading the whole thing;