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.
It's not 180 degrees, it's ONE job. BlueScope are still hiring mostly males.
And there's a ton of research done by hundreds of extremely smart people with decades of academic expertise demonstrating that improving diversity does work to improve work culture, broaden the skill base of a team, create a more inclusive atmosphere for everyone, reduce harassment and bullying, increase the pool of qualified candidates willing to apply for future jobs and improve productivity.
Research that I am not going to bore you with since those kinds of discussions inevitably trigger nit picking, misrepresentation, ignoring the data, making up "alternative facts", or shifting the goal posts to support someone's initial feelpinions.
It's not one job. They have had the exemption since January 2021, do you think they applied for the exemption and haven't been using it?
It's also used for the "better" roles like management or entry level positions.
Actually, the exemption has probably expired or is expiring very soon it was only for 3 years… The advertisement could actually be illegal.
Yes! And this is literally the way they are ensuring their hiring practices are slightly closer to equal
The pendulum has swung the other way. Companies now have missions/objectives to increase board/senior management (and other levels) diversity hence sometimes look for a specific gender to balance out the existing workforce.
So while it looks discriminatory in isolation (the job ad), it's an attempt at the opposite at a bigger picture (the organization).
Silly billies can nit pick at whatever level they want.
Oof. Sad to see people not able to accept that there are issues in workplaces and sometimes for balance this is necessary.
I'm guessing white males who have always had the privilege are complaining the loudest. And I say this as a white male who's managed to get to a high level of management while doing (profanity) all.
What issues exactly in the workplace?
Think a little why having a predominantly male workplace is problematic. There's at least three easy ones that cause problems for most companies and are easily solved by this sort of hiring.
That's your answer for this question and for this whole thread. The problem is when you don't understand why that's an issue and just think "Dur I'm a guy and I am being discriminated against any time it's not 50/50 or in my favour, dumb woke culture!!"
Please list those 3 you are talking about because i have no idea. I actually see a positive for having more males, no need to find cover for super long maternity leaves. Finding cover and paying out for maternity leave is very detrimental to SMEs.
@Ughhh: No its not, males cant get pregnant. If Lara from HR went out and had a one night stand and got pregnant and didn't know who the father was, she would be eligible for Maternity leave. Not many bald single overweight men would be eligible for paternity leave.
@mrvaluepack: Read up on updated fairwork laws. Fathers can get paternity leave.
Do you know what "paternity" means? Why would the single man get paternity/parental leave when they haven't pushed human being out, had major surgery and/or aren't looking after a newborn?
My guess is you've never had a child. Don't be so ignorant.
@Ughhh: Geez you dont understand statistics or the law of averages do you? Need I spell it out for you?
Lets say you take a sample of 50 males and 50 females and monitor them from birth to death. There would most definitely be a higher percentage/number of those 50 females taking maternity leave sometime throughout their working career compared to those 50 males taking any sort of paternity leave.
@mrvaluepack: What about that problem where people discover you don't support the countries sustainablity and boycott and close down your business.
Is it discriminatory, yes. Is it legal, yes, because they've been granted an exemption. They have a DEI quota/target to hit. Many companies will compromises on traditional hiring methods so they can be more reflective of the broader society.
Exemption from who? Doesn't make it legal.
Yes, it does.
I take it English isn't your first language given your comprehension struggles.
What language would you like a summation translated into?
It certainly does make it legal.
VCAT can grant temporary exemptions from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 in appropriate circumstances. While the exemption is in place, the otherwise discriminatory conduct is not against the law. VCAT can grant, renew or revoke an exemption under section 90 of the Act.
https://discriminationclaims.com.au/bluescope-steel-given-gr…
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted the exemption and therefore what Bluescope are doing is perfectly legal. They have a legal right to discriminate now.
You are also 3 years too late to be getting your panties bunched up. If you had an objection, you could have lodged one in 2021 when it was before the tribunal like the 13 other people who share your views about not wanting more female representation in Bluescope's workforce.
Legal right to discriminate.
Nice, like the apartheid in south africa and jim crow laws in the usa. Thats why i mentioned Australia is going backwards.
Legal right to discriminate.
Yes, in both federal and state legislation, there has always been a legal right to discriminate based on exemptions - in all protected attributes - sex, age, disability, religious.
Thats why i mentioned Australia is going backwards.
This has existed for decades, in fact has existed since the beginning of anti-discrimination laws in Australia. How is it only now, when a male is discriminated against, that you think things are going backwards?
There's been decades of religious, disability, age and sex discrimination via exemptions and it takes a female only job to trigger your concern around the weakness of the anti-discrimination laws in Australia?
As a white, well educated, well paid CIS male in Australia with the opportunities granted to my sex, I couldn't care less if a company only hires females in roles in their company to get their 12% female workforce to a more diverse level.
I do get why you might be upset, doesn't mean I will be / am of course. Discrimination sucks at the end of the day, agree.
No prob here. Just identify as a female.
This is dumb. Hire the best candidate
This attitude is how companies became so unbalanced. Many times the person deciding who the best candidate is, picks the person that is just like them and rationalises why they are 'the best'. If resumes were blinded and those doing the choosing were a diverse group, I think it would be a better way, but we are not there yet.
You are not wrong, there will all always be some bias, perhaps in part due to sex and cultural similarities. But piling on more discrimination and almost deadly hiring practices is not helpful. I work in a hazardous environment, we have a lot of diverity hires with no experience or relevent skills and its a mess, it does result in excess deaths in my industry.
Discrination to counter discrimiation is just a poorly thought out solution.
Recently interviewed a candidate. Male, smart, maybe a little nerdy but essentially ticked all the boxes for me.
But manager didn't like him because we're (all) too alike (nerdy) and wanted slightly different personalities in the team.
The candidate that ticked her requirement was another male and very outgoing / extrovert.
But her manager then asked for gender diversity to meet her own DEI targets.
So we ended up getting the extrovert guy + another lady when we could have hired the first guy.
If managers can't exercise judgement as to what sort of people they need then why make them manager in the first place.
@aboogee: Judgement for sure, but just broad discrimiation based on sex and ethinicty in its entirety? Thats just wrong, DEI is barbarism in the workplace. Thats the very thing that people decry as so evil and wrong in the past. Reverse discrimation is still discrimination.
The world wont end because some random unskilled dei got the job over some dude. But the world also didnt end because blacks had to sit at the back of the bus. Same shit, low effect. Just dont pretend to have any sense of morality.
More unemployed males on jobseeker than females
They have received an exemption, most likely because of the proportion of male to female workers for that particular role in that particular area. OP, do you want to apply for this, or are you trying to fight against discrimination?
This is nothing new. Sometimes we advertise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are encouraged to apply, and they even get priority because of the lack of representation.
Would have wanted to apply and know a few mates who would be more than suitable for this. As mentioned above, i've seen ads where the words encouraged or preferred are used but not like this ad where it explicitly says only accept women or non binary.
Look, there can be several reasons why exemptions are given. One thing can be that there are many female employees so there's a need for a female manager, I can provide you more reasons, and some are already provided in the comments.
So I wouldn't consider this as a discrimination. For a discrimination to occur, it should be widespread with no justification.
That is extraordinarily sexist to imply that female employees need a female manager.
My guy, have a quick look at the history of world civilisation - as males we've given ourselves an advantage or two, so I hardly think we need to play the 'unfair' card on such things as this. :-)
Ok, then we should also enjoy becoming a third world country as meritocracy dies.
I think you'll find that developing countries are the opposite - they typically have corrupt governing bodies due to their own versions of meritocracy only accepting those that look and think like them. Bringing in diversity keeps it fairer for everyone, and if you've ever worked in hiring you'll find that once it is diverse enough, everyone works hard to make sure the balance is in favour of everyone. It doesn't wind up that the place becomes 90% female for example, everyone tries to keep it fair. Our department at work over time became more skewed toward women so we started prioritising male candidates to keep it balanced. It's not like there is one right person for a job, often there are many, all quite equal on paper, so people are chosen on best fit.
Third world countries actually have more open discrimination while successful countries have credited success to low corruption, smart government decisions and meritocracy.
This ad will definately not fly in countries like Singapore or usa which are more successful than Australia.
@mrvaluepack: Yes. They are highly discriminatory. Against women.
It sounds to me like your definition of success rests solely in dollar value. By tying your self worth up only in money, it makes you very easy to control. By governments, workplaces etc. You're not a vending machine, you don't exist solely to generate numbers. What if you workplace was a nice place to work? That supported your life and interests outside of work? That was still profitable and enabled you to live a good life as well? Because that's the 'agenda' here.
@MessyG: Yes, the success of a country mainly lies on its gdp per capita nominal value. Those who argue otherwise are uneducated in economics and the state of global affairs.
This ad will definately not fly in countries like Singapore or usa which are more successful than Australia
I thought the US was a third world country?
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15317474/redir
or qatar instead.
I dont think you'd find much support proposing our general worker and employment practices should be more aligned with Qatar.
But you do you.
@mrvaluepack: You are free to live wherever you want, you know. Well, anywhere that will take you at least
@mrvaluepack: This ad will definitely fly in alot of Asia.
I was in Thailand recently and enjoying the ads for the waitresses and waitors.
"The focus is on young with small bodies" was a line from one job advertisement.
Yeah this thread is ridiculous lol.
It's sad how unaware some people are. Completely happy having extreme advantages in most places compared to others, but the moment they encounter anyone trying to make it fairer legally they whine and say it's unfair.
Just have no clue what actual disadvantage looks like and want nothing to change so they can keep their advantages and not have to change their own shitty ways.
Please explain what disadvantage a woman would have if this role was made available to both sexes?
Look at the rest of this thread.
You're clearly just shutting your eyes and not listening so I won't waste my time repeating what everyone keeps telling you and you're ignoring.
Some people are unaware and can use that excuse, while others are even worse and given the information still carry on. The latter is dangerous as they're actively ignorant and I'd say just sexist at this stage and incapable of understanding why.
@DingoBilly: Typical response from someone who clearly can't specifically elaborate or is afraid of logical debates.
Who has been killed in war at a higher rate historically?
Without 10000 years of data, who the hell knows? I imagine very often the males could run faster without children to slow them down.
You don't need stats on every single conflict in human history to figure it out. We have recorded history (with decent accuracy) for quite a long stretch of time and for many major conflicts. What makes you think we can't simply extrapolate from that?
@OzBarAnon: We would have estimates of people killed in the Blitz or Hiroshima or by Nazi's and probably not as accurate data from China or Russia during that war. But I am assuming the wars fought by The Mongols or Vikings or Apaches or Aztecs or Maoris or Zulus, Vikings, Scots, Romans etc etc would have looked very different. Different tech, different cultures, not a lot of records.
@tonka: You can assume that they were different, but that doesn't make it true. We have records and some degree of understanding of their cultures. You'll find in just about all of them that their armies were composed entirely (or very close to) of men. It doesn't take a genius to figure that a battle involving all-male combatants will have a death-toll that is all-male. Subsequent killings of women would only be possible because the males were already killed in battle to begin with.
@OzBarAnon: Your clean cut version of war sounds like a video game. Even as recently as WW2 for every soldier killed, two civilians died. And those various armies were different. Mongol armies very different to Roman armies, and sometimes genocide was a thing. Yes mostly menfolk in standing armies, and you know what, sometimes standing armies were safe in their numbers or fortresses defending their nobility while enemy roaming armies were out wiping out communities full of civilians. But going back to those women lucky enough not to be men, so much better to get raped, brutalized, enslaved lucky lucky. Have a look at the casualties in current wars, try and use Israel or Gaza to prove your point.
@tonka: You say this as if genocide/civilian casualties affects women moreso than men. On a base level, it is in fact better to be enslaved than killed. Being a warbride means having the possibility of having children and continuing your lineage. There's a reason why men of a society didn't simply flee or hide out in a cave and let their women get killed, and that's because that would be end of their entire civilization. On a biological level, men are more disposable and human societies have constructed themselves around this reality. There's a reason why men are the vast majority of frontline combatants even today, and why they're overrepresented in high-fatality lines of work.
@OzBarAnon: This is all your opinion of how you think things were.
'It doesn't take a genius to figure that a battle involving all-male combatants will have a death-toll that is all-male.'
All male that was your version of war, then maybe subsequent impacted women. I gave you real data not opinion.
And 'warbride', wtf, read some real history mate, you're trying to pretty up sexual slavery and torture, gross and conversation is over.
So surprised this site has so many TERFS and misogynists.
Not really.
I advocate for initiatives that decrease Australia's productivity, lowering the tax base and mitigating the risk of war due to being under-resourced.
Teams with equal gender ratios often encounter awkward dynamics as gender stereotypes tend to manifest. Cohesion is lacking, and those who claim otherwise are deceiving themselves.
I am concerned that if conscription is reinstated, women will be some of the first to be drafted because of the anti-discrimination policies. Frankly, we need to be careful what we wish for.
The origins of DEI are malicious, and include getting women to work, being taxed, and for conscription… If you wanted to work in the past you chose to do so, now you are forced to just to get by. They tell us we consented to it, but who would choose such a demeaning path full of toxicity. No we never had a choice, the same as when you are born, you are shackled by the laws.
e.g.
There was a kid who was not wearing a helmet a few days ago in the news that had received fines totalling over $1,000. Where is the mens rea for the crime? How did she consent to the arbitrary enforcement of laws that do not protect her? How can the society throw a child into prison for not paying fines? Jury Nullification hopefully occurs…
In the past you did not have women at work, but that did not mean we did not have our own societies… Now we don't even have that because we are too busy at work.
The only benefactors are the government. We are still left with the same problems, domestic violence has increased, everything is an illusion. Do not trust the government. Do your own research.
So I would say, take your stupid job and shove it.
Women have always worked. There was a brief time post-war in which the women had to quit their jobs to support those returning from war but if you think women stayed home in an apron all day cooking, you're dreaming. Even in Victorian-era times, stay at home wives managed the household - they hired the cook and the maids, and managed the money. If you were poor - you worked in low-paid jobs while others watched your kids. What is different now is that women can vote, and they can go to university. They've always worked, they were just shut out from many workplaces and higher education.
Teams with equal gender ratios often encounter awkward dynamics as gender stereotypes tend to manifest. Cohesion is lacking, and those who claim otherwise are deceiving themselves.
Evidence?
A friend of mine ticked the non-binary box at a very large employer here in Australia simply because he thought it would be funny. There are no consequences for ticking the box. Nothing is going to happen. No one will dare challenge you.
So just identify as non-binary, pick one of the dozens of genders available, and attend the interview.
Thanks for the info, might give it a go then lol
im gonna start applying jobs early next year and will definitely try this
Try half and half and you'll soon realise being male with an Australian sounding name will get you a better hit rate.
Just to clarify, you're advocating for taking away from people who are actually non-binary so as a male who already has an advantage you can get further ahead? And that now a company that's trying to hire people to reflect non-binary groups better has hired someone who doesn't understand it/thinks its funny you can be non-binary has taken that role?
This is some of the dumbest advice on here, and it's sad it's upvoted. Some people are just awful people unfortunately.
Are you suggesting they're lying and ticking a box to gain special privilege or advantage which they wouldn't otherwise have if people didn't entertain their delusion or self-serving agenda and instead treated them in a egalitarian manner?
what advantage mate? Who ever is best qualified should get the job.
Yeah, or the manager will discriminate against you, offer less starting salary, overlook for promotion, won't invite to fishing trips etc.
So they are looking for a person who is a female or has some mental problems with accepting reality.
Everyone notice how all the sign/ flagger jobs are given to the women in any road work, and most are just on their phones winging about equality while getting paid almost the same as the guys doing heavy road works !?
Aren't they the ones directly responsible for everyone's safety?
Yes. Why theyre on their phones half the time, irresponsible
Phones are not a gender thing.
Your comment has completely convinced me we have no sexism in Australia, and therefore no need for improved balance in the workplace
The world needs urgent de-population.
Seek is getting paid to do so.
Housing crisis being solved.
Mine's HR manageressssssss is out of hormones, keeps 2 dogs at home.
Murdoch is happy.
CNN is happy.
Please try to make your points more coherent next time
I see you are unfamiliar with literally every single comment this person has ever made in here
But a women's work is never done. They should be paid less.
If you want someone to do the job well hire a straight white male
DEI (didn't earn it)
I'm a female and I hate this. I've always held the belief (misguided it seems) that the best person for the job should be chosen. Not who you know, not what minority you belong to to tick some "inclusivity" box, none of this crap. Some industries are just naturally going to attract more of one gender over the other for whatever reason. If minorities are not getting treated right, or overlooked for jobs, truly fix that culture within your company. Don't hire a woman, an Asian, a non binary person and a Muslim just to say "hey, look how inclusive we are". Hire them because they had the best resume and were the best fit for the role.
You are correct, however it's been decades of trying it that way and it hasn't worked, data supports this. Even in industries traditionally female, males are getting more senior positions and better pay. Now business leaders are given targets 'internally' and having to achieve them to get their bonuses. Companies need to complete data on their gender balance to get tenders both gov't and private.The data gets reported to gov't and shareholders etc.
I would argue that hiring a female is not the answer to that problem. You can still hire the female, but under pay her, fail to promote her etc. Unless the underlying culture changes, then nothing changes. THAT should be first port of call for change.
How many decades do women have to wait while things are slowly changed through training? Shouldn't we be able to have equality now?
Here's the link where all this stuff gets measured. It's an annual self reporting thing.
Companies have arrived at a time where their statistics are public and they will lose significant business if they score poorly. Big companies have diversity targets for themselves, but also the companies they award business to. It's pretty standard to have to advise your gender ratio when applying for tenders now.
https://www.wgea.gov.au/publications/australias-gender-equal…
@tonka: How long do men have to wait until life expectancy/suicide rates/homelessness matches women???
We should be able to have equality now, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
It's now seen as a positive to discriminate based on gender. Discrimination is discrimination.
It is yet to be seen that businesses that perform poorly on diversity with "lose significant business". Might lose government contracts, but no real business. In fact the opposite is just as likely to be true, especially for gendered workforces.
For the record, I've worked on numerous government tender panels and I can tell you the information on diversity is completely ignored. If you seriously believe companies win contracts based on those diversity statistics and not past performance you are delusional.
@field1985: You should start taking estrogen if that's supposed to be the why women live a bit longer. That and they are more risk adverse and generally make more sacrifices for their health. But hey start a forum post on it and discuss it and suicide rates and homelessness there. And there are plenty of gender disadvantages that are caused by nature, shoe size, bras, cramps even, not workplaces like this one.
Ok you've worked on tender panels.'past tense' how many do you work on now?
@tonka: Not sitting on one currently, because finance systems are about to shutdown in two weeks due to EOFY and a 2 week block is placed on new tenders/purchases.
@tonka: There won't be equality where salaries are negotiated or based on promotion because men in general are more aggressive than women. That's biology.
You are correct
Then leave it at that.
Tbh i don’t care what a company does.
But if we are discussing whether or not it is the right thing to do or not, or do companies have a problem with equality, @jakt70 has hit the nail on the head:
fix that culture within your company
A rigid “we need to hire x person because they fit this gender/minority/kpi” is a load of garbage.
Companies should hire the best person for the job and fix their company culture if there is issues, not just do these stupid “look at me” hires.
Yes but that doesn't happen until the people doing the hiring are diverse and the resumes are blinded to name and gender. Otherwise it's all 'fit', mateship and nepotism and everyone knows it.
And FWIW as a female, I would never apply for a position like this. It is set up to fail and I'd argue the people doing the hiring know it. The fact that they've had to go and get a legal exemption just to list it speaks volumes. They've got a cultural problem there which isn't going to be fixed with job ads like this. They probably know that too.
That's true, but you shouldn't need diverse people in leadership roles to hire other diverse people, you just need decent people with a good head on their shoulders. Diversity hiring just to lead to more diversity hiring is only shifting the culture, not changing it. We need people, of any race, age, gender, sexuality etc to be open to hiring beyond what they know and can relate to.
How great would it be if resumes were nameless, genderless, ageless and interviews were done by voice only, and distorted to the point you can't pick a gender? We can only dream…..
I think we do, because leaving it up decent people to date has been quite the failure. Diversity hiring doesn't mean someone gets picked because they're female etc . It means between two candidates who are the same on paper, the person is picked that best balances out the team. That is not a bad thing. This trope that diversity hires are automatically unqualified is quite tiring but also suits the agenda of those who don't benefit from it.
I've worked in an all female team and we have gone out of our way to hire men to bring it back to a 50/50 balance - it works both ways.
@MessyG: I would argue they AREN'T decent people though.
I'm sure the diversity hires are qualified and can do the job. You would hope so at least. However, given ALL the candidates available if it were open to all, would that person still be the best person for that role?
@MessyG: Two candidates are never going to be equal, everyone's different in the way they work. Some are lazier, some are stronger, some are smarter, some are more attractive. This is evident in every workforce with more than one employee
To make someone's gender a hiring criteria and give them a leg up over other candidates is obviously going to affect whether the most competent candidate gets hired. You've posited that the two candidates are 100% equal in their capabilities and work ethic but that's not possible anywhere but on paper
So, if a woman was 90% as good as a male candidate the job would go to her even if she wasn't the employee that would be the best at their role, harming the productivity/profitability of the company. A lady could just as likely be better (110% as good) as a man for a role in which case why should she not get the job? Because there aren't enough men in the workplace? There will be more men and more women that apply if you advertise roles, there's no point losing out on the best fit for the sake of diversity. You can hire them then, when they prove to be the best candidate for the job
@SpainKing: Unfortunately many people in positions of power have defined the 'best' rather loosely. Perhaps there should simply be a cutoff and once people exceed that, they can decide on best fit. Plenty of people are usually qualified for the same job, and from there they are hired based on organisational fit. This has been done forever, and largely in favour of one gender. There's nothing wrong with continuing to do so and benefit from a diversified workplace, otherwise it stagnates anyway.
Yes but that doesn't happen until the people doing the hiring are diverse and the resumes are blinded to name and gender.
Actually the opposite appears to happen.
https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/projects/going-blind…
This study assessed whether women and minorities are discriminated against in the early stages of the recruitment process for senior positions in the Australian Public Service (APS). It also tested the impact of implementing a ‘blind’ or de-identified approach to reviewing candidates.
Over 2,100 public servants from 15 agencies participated in the trial. They completed an exercise in which they shortlisted applicants for a hypothetical senior role in their agency. Participants were randomly assigned to receive application materials for candidates in standard form or in de-identified form (with information about candidate gender, race and ethnicity removed).
Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the APS, as de-identification may frustrate efforts aimed at promoting diversity.
cant hire the best person for the job it doesnt suit the agenda
Would you not agree that a fix is to ensure that hiring practices provide equal opportunities to all genders?
Doing a 180 to play catch up is just not going to work….