A discussion on gender quotas - how do they work. Someone please explain it to me.

Crock Rock

Can someone please explain the logic behind these, maybe I'm missing something here. Am I missing a trick?

Say there are 10 jobs going in a certain sector.

There are 500 CVs submitted for these lucrative jobs.

The company is being forced to implement a minimum of 40% recruitment for women.

The jobs are gradually filled and the first 6 candidates to be selected are men with PhDs in the field in question, with 3-5 years of middle management in the area with more years on top of that as a junior worker.

There are 4 jobs remaining to be filled.

The company is sifting through CVs and sorting them based on qualifications and suitability for the role.

The 4 most qualified candidates chosen are 3 women and 1 man.

However, by hiring the 3 women and 1 man, they will only have 30% female candidates.

How is this dilemma solved?

Do they have to pass over the more qualified man to hire a less qualified woman to satisfy the 40% female employment ratio? I'm confused.

Do these gender quotas work the other way too? Would a company get a slap on the knuckles if they had 90% women and 10% men?

Rufeo

By hiring the best person for the job.

ohnonotgmail

who are these companies forced to hire 40% women?

DavidLyons_

Some people don’t want equality. They want special treatment.

Riskymove

I am not sure there are any official gender quotas for companies in place yet so some of your questions are simply theoretical

But in the example you give, if they had to have at least 40% women then that's what they have to have or presumably they would be subject to sanction

they do not however have to hire women who do not meet the requirements

I would think it likely that the quota would apply to all staff not just a percentage of job vacancies

Crock Rock

Rufeo wrote: »

By hiring the best person for the job.

But from what I can see, the gender quotas would contradict that. What if the best person for the job are all men or all women or all bi / trans / cis etc.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who are these companies forced to hire 40% women?

None so far, that I am aware of.
But I have heard it about a few times that various companies were either considering implementing it or possibly being coerced into doing so.

I believe there was talk of forcing political parties to implement a gender quota for Dáil Éireann.

Riskymove

Crock Rock wrote: »

into doing so.

I believe there was talk of forcing political parties to implement a gender quota for D reann.

quotas were implemented for candidates that parties ran

but there is no quota in the Dail

Crock Rock

Riskymove wrote: »

I am not sure there are any official gender quotas for companies in place yet so some of your questions are simply theoretical

But in the example you give, if they had to have at least 40% women then that's what they have to have or presumably they would be subject to sanction

they do not however have to hire women who do not meet the requirements

I would think it likely that the quota would apply to all staff not just a percentage of job vacancies

Again, that would fly in the face of the "best person for the job" mantra.

Meeting the minimum requirements is one thing, but foregoing a more qualified candidate to satisfy a gender quota is a different kettle of fish altogether.

LirW

I believe that in private companies the quotas are commitments they make? I honestly have no idea if a private company could get fined from an official body over not fulfilling quotas.

Anyway, this also works the other way around and there are female-dominated fields like childcare that try and get male staff on board.

I think the idea of a commitment to certain quotas is certainly a good thing but the way it's done doesn't do anyone any favours and creates a rift between men and women.
And in the final stages of recruitment it often isn't solely about your qualifications anymore but how well you'd fit into the existing team and your attitude towards the job, co-workers and the field.

Riskymove

Crock Rock wrote: »

Again, that would fly in the face of the "best person for the job" mantra.

Meeting the minimum requirements is one thing, but foregoing a more qualified candidate to satisfy a gender quota is a different kettle of fish altogether.

but this is a theoretical position where legally a company must have 40% women. That is the question asked

I don't believe that such a requirement would actually be put in place

The nearest I have seen is the idea that if there are two equally "best" candidates then gender should be considered based on the current make up in that organisation

griffin100

The mistake you’ve made OP is assuming that there are just two genders. There are in fact loads. Facebook recognises over 50 genders - https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/

How are you going to mange gender representation / quotas now?

Earthhorse

The extra man has to get a sex change.

It’s written into their contract.

50 genders go away outta that

Dravokivich

If you came to my office a few months ago, you'll see a few guys and a few women. Come to my office now you'll see a few guys and some women. How does gender quota handle redundancies?

ILoveYourVibes

Crock Rock wrote: »

Can someone please explain the logic behind these, maybe I'm missing something here. Am I missing a trick?

Say there are 10 jobs going in a certain sector.

There are 500 CVs submitted for these lucrative jobs.

The company is being forced to implement a minimum of 40% recruitment for women.

The jobs are gradually filled and the first 6 candidates to be selected are men with PhDs in the field in question, with 3-5 years of middle management in the area with more years on top of that as a junior worker.

There are 4 jobs remaining to be filled.

The company is sifting through CVs and sorting them based on qualifications and suitability for the role.

The 4 most qualified candidates chosen are 3 women and 1 man.

However, by hiring the 3 women and 1 man, they will only have 30% female candidates.

How is this dilemma solved?

Do they have to pass over the more qualified man to hire a less qualified woman to satisfy the 40% female employment ratio? I'm confused.

Do these gender quotas work the other way too? Would a company get a slap on the knuckles if they had 90% women and 10% men?

Personally I am against gender quotas.

Actually there is a youtuber True Geordie who used to be a deep sea diver doing civil engineering etc who told this story on his podcast. He was working with a guy who used to be a navy diver. His job was to pass or fail people for the royal marines.

He was told by 'higher ups' that a woman was going to be sent to him and he was NOT by any means to let her pass. He was told men wouldn't want to join and it would make it less elite a position if a woman could do it.

He didn't personally agree but he had to do it. When this woman turned up she was like this ripped triathalete. But he just beasted her.

Still not sure if the story is true. But i am sure things like that go on.

If women are in certain jobs guys don't want to do them anymore and they lose their prestige.

So while i am AGAINST gender quotas for women etc. I would like honest discussion about the topic and full disclosure from the industries Army etc.

They can hire who they like. But they must be honest if they are not hiring women etc so people don't waste their time.

If 'higher ups' truly don't want women in an industry for whatever reason they should have the balls to be open about it.

They have the right to discriminate its their organization. Just be honest.

ILoveYourVibes

Dravokivich wrote: »

If you came to my office a few months ago, you'll see a few guys and a few women. Come to my office now you'll see a few guys and some women. How does gender quota handle redundancies?

There could be any number of anyone in your office you have told us NOTHING NOOOOOTHING! :mad:

I joking. :P

ohnonotgmail

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Personally I am against gender quotas.

Actually there is a youtuber True Geordie who used to be a deep sea diver doing civil engineering etc who told this story on his podcast. He was working with a guy who used to be a navy diver. His job was to pass or fail people for the royal marines.

He was told by 'higher ups' that a woman was going to be sent to him and he was NOT by any means to let her pass. He was told men wouldn't want to join and it would make it less elite a position if a woman could do it.

He didn't personally agree but he had to do it. When this woman turned up she was like this ripped triathalete. But he just beasted her.

Still not sure if the story is true. But i am sure things like that go on.

If women are in certain jobs guys don't want to do them anymore and they lose their prestige.

So while i am AGAINST gender quotas for women etc. I would like honest discussion about the topic and full disclosure from the industries Army etc.

They can hire who they like. But they must be honest if they are not hiring women etc so people don't waste their time.

If 'higher ups' truly don't want women in an industry for whatever reason they should have the balls to be open about it.

They have the right to discriminate its their organization. Just be honest.

The royal marines only started accepting female candidates this year.

Strumms

If I’m a hiring manager, for a new business. I need to hire 3 people to work in the office.

If I hire 3 male employees, each of whom I genuinely feel are the best qualified and deserving candidates out of a team of 6 interviewed...I’m sexist. So by being fair and a responsible manager, to the business, it’s customers and other employees I’m being wrong and in fact sexist... if I hire three females I’m the bastion of fairness, good judgment etc...

ILoveYourVibes

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The royal marines only started accepting female candidates this year.

This is the video. 41.40 This is the story i am not making up.

It was to become a navy diver.

I believe him.

It was to be royal navy diver.

its a true story.

I believe the story 100% True Geordies audience is almost all guys he has nothing to gain by telling it.

I 100% believe its true.

HappyAsLarE

As an Engineering manager I have gotten remarks about not hiring women. Women in Engineering are unusual. The percentage of applicants that are female is always less than 5%.

Strumms

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

As an Engineering manager I have gotten remarks about not hiring women. Women in Engineering are unusual. The percentage of applicants that are female is always less than 5%.

So statistically if you are hiring 20 engineers the likelihood is that 1 will be female... if that happened people could be up in arms...

You could though due to ‘gender pressure’ actively discriminate against a well qualified, deserving male candidate...

ILoveYourVibes

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

As an Engineering manager I have gotten remarks about not hiring women. Women in Engineering are unusual. The percentage of applicants that are female is always less than 5%.

What type of engineering is it?

Obviously if its a very physical thing there is a reason why there is the disparity.

HappyAsLarE

Strumms wrote: »

So statistically if you are hiring 20 engineers the likelihood is that 1 will be female... if that happened people could be up in arms...

You could though due to ‘gender pressure’ actively discriminate against a well qualified, deserving male candidate...

We have 16 men and 1 woman so I’m actually sexist against the men

ohnonotgmail

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is the video. 41.40 This is the story i am not making up.

It was to become a navy diver.

I believe him.

It was to be royal navy diver.

its a true story.

I believe the story 100% True Geordies audience is almost all guys he has nothing to gain by telling it.

I 100% believe its true.

so nothing to do with the royal marines

HappyAsLarE

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What type of engineering is it?

Obviously if its a very physical thing there is a reason why there is the disparity.

What do you mean physical thing? It’s an office job mostly with site visits for surveys.

The dept is about 30/30/30/10 mechanical/electrical/electronic/other

ILoveYourVibes

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so nothing to do with the royal marines

Ok so we have established i don't know my army ......sections....things

Morgans

Crock Rock wrote: »

Again, that would fly in the face of the "best person for the job" mantra.

Meeting the minimum requirements is one thing, but foregoing a more qualified candidate to satisfy a gender quota is a different kettle of fish altogether.

an imagined gender quota which you have pretended to exist

is_that_so

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What type of engineering is it?

Obviously if its a very physical thing there is a reason why there is the disparity.

I was on engineering course where there were 4 women out of 80, not an uncommon scenario. The only area where there might be a better representation is in computer engineering courses but even there if you find beyond 30% you are doing well.

ILoveYourVibes

is_that_so wrote: »

I was on engineering course where there were 4 women out of 80, not an uncommon scenario. The only area where there might be a better representation is in computer engineering courses but even there if you find beyond 30% you are doing well.

Shrug.

Men are usually better at the spacial awareness thing and maths.

My spatial awareness and geographical awareness is appalling. Like really really bad. People don't get it. I have no internal map or GPS.

I think that is a female thing.

HappyAsLarE

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Shrug.

Men are usually better at the spacial awareness thing and maths.

My spatial awareness and geographical awareness is appalling. Like really really bad. People don't get it. I have no internal map or GPS.

I think that is a female thing.

It is refreshing to hear a reasonable woman stating such differences between genders in a “so what” way.

When quizzed by a HR female manager about the under representation of women in my department I replied “engineers are odd cookies why would you want to be one”.

I truly believe humility and self deprecation to be a virtue.

Silentcorner

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

It is refreshing to hear a reasonable woman stating such differences between genders in a “so what” way.

When quizzed by a HR female manager about the under representation of women in my department I replied “engineers are odd cookies why would you want to be one”.

I truly believe humility and self deprecation to be a virtue.

In an age of narcissism laced with an infantile attitude, those vital virtues are scarce!

Gender Quotas exists to benefit one gender, that is how it works, that one gender gets to choose where to get quotas implemented, because, you know, they couldn't be getting their hands dirty or hair wet!!!

HappyAsLarE

Silentcorner wrote: »

In an age of narcissism laced with an infantile attitude, those vital virtues are scarce!

Gender Quotas exists to benefit one gender, that is how it works, that one gender gets to choose where to get quotas implemented, because, you know, they couldn't be getting their hands dirty or hair wet!!!

Listen I love women, my favourite people are me Ma and me Wife. But quotas are shown up for wha they are when women don’t apply to be bin “people” or building site labourers.

Ps isn’t is sad that most men are considered sexist despite valuing their Mothers and Spouses above literally everything.

kowloon

is_that_so wrote: »

I was on engineering course where there were 4 women out of 80, not an uncommon scenario. The only area where there might be a better representation is in computer engineering courses but even there if you find beyond 30% you are doing well.

There were two women in a year of over 100 in my course. One left after first year and the other did very well for herself and was hired straight out of the course by a US multinational. Engineering just doesn't attract as many women, even when you argue about all the barriers in the way it still doesn't account for the disparities.

Silentcorner

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Listen I love women, my favourite people are me Ma and me Wife. But quotas are shown up for wha they are when women don’t apply to be bin “people” or building site labourers.

Ps isn’t is sad that most men are considered sexist despite valuing their Mothers and Spouses above literally everything.

The central reason, besides the persistent dishonesty of the feminist movement, I can't relate to the movement is because I don't know any weak women, I've never been in a relationship with a weak woman, I can't relate to this wave of feminism that treats women like infants...I was reared surrounded by very strong female individuals!

The types of people who believe people like us to be sexists, used to call people like us blasphemers...I wouldn't worry about it!

Strumms

I’d be very happy as I’ve said to hire three males, three females, two females and one male or one male and two females as long as during the process of hiring I know I’m awarding the positions to the best candidates who have gone to the bother of presenting themselves for interview.

I’m not going to be of the mind to be adhering to perceived ‘gender balance’.. I’m of the mind to want to achieve ‘talent’ balance... so I’m not going to be heard... “sorry Dave, I cannot award you a position even though you might be more deserving and qualified than other candidates, we have ‘gender’ quotas which I need to meet”...

Fairness when hiring should be based on ability, experience and personality not gender.

biko

Gender quotes is usually expressed in that if you hire 10 nurses you make sure to make at least 3 or 4 male.

Genders in many jobs doesn't make a difference.
This because there isn't any tests to show you are better than the other candidates.
"More qualified" isn't a real measurement. Just like "best person for the job" is an opinion.
The only tests are to show you won't be **** at the job.


So if experience and other measurables are pretty equal between all candidates then hire the sex there is less of at work.

DanyTargaryen

I'm a female software dev and have always considered myself to be a feminist but i don't think the gender quotas are the right way to go.

When I was in college I was one of seven girls in a class of 120 and not all of those seven graduated so I don't see how every company enforcing a 50:50 ratio could possibly work with those numbers. It could also create some bitterness and tension if people feel women are only getting hired to hit a quota.

I think it would be great if more women did computing but I think the best way to achieve that is to get more kids coding, especially girls. If more girls go to college to do computing then more females will graduate and if the graduation rate hits a 50:50 ratio then the industry ratio will naturally adjust.

Personally, I would hate to feel like I was only hired as a diversity hire and not because I was seen as a valuable asset to the company.

biko

I hired to a SW team and did try to round the team by hiring older and younger, men and women.
I don't know if it was particularly better with a diverse team, but I hope so and everyone were pretty happy.

My only policy then was "hire Galway people first", something I'm sure someone here will take objection to.

One eyed Jack

Crock Rock wrote: »

Can someone please explain the logic behind these, maybe I'm missing something here. Am I missing a trick?

Say there are 10 jobs going in a certain sector.

There are 500 CVs submitted for these lucrative jobs.

The company is being forced to implement a minimum of 40% recruitment for women.

The jobs are gradually filled and the first 6 candidates to be selected are men with PhDs in the field in question, with 3-5 years of middle management in the area with more years on top of that as a junior worker.

There are 4 jobs remaining to be filled.

The company is sifting through CVs and sorting them based on qualifications and suitability for the role.

The 4 most qualified candidates chosen are 3 women and 1 man.

However, by hiring the 3 women and 1 man, they will only have 30% female candidates.

How is this dilemma solved?

Do they have to pass over the more qualified man to hire a less qualified woman to satisfy the 40% female employment ratio? I'm confused.

Do these gender quotas work the other way too? Would a company get a slap on the knuckles if they had 90% women and 10% men?

You’re not missing anything. What you are doing though, is purposely misrepresenting the idea of gender quotas and what they are aiming to achieve, by presenting a convoluted scenario which is not a realistic reflection of any hiring process I’m aware of. If the idea is to hire ten people, four of whom must be women, then you’re interviewing for ten positions, not filling the first six positions with men and then seeing who’s left over that you’ll be left to choose between four women and one man, or hiring three women and then being presented with the false dilemma of the last candidate being either a man or a woman.

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Listen I love women, my favourite people are me Ma and me Wife. But quotas are shown up for wha they are when women don’t apply to be bin “people” or building site labourers.

Ps isn’t is sad that most men are considered sexist despite valuing their Mothers and Spouses above literally everything.

How does that show up gender quotas for what they are? Do you imagine there are no women working in the construction industry or waste management? There are, plenty. There aren’t too many however are willing to apply for low paid jobs which present a risk to their health. What you’re doing is like pointing out there aren’t too many men who aspire to be rent boys. Who fcuking would?

DanyTargaryen wrote: »

I'm a female software dev and have always considered myself to be a feminist but i don't think the gender quotas are the right way to go.

When I was in college I was one of seven girls in a class of 120 and not all of those seven graduated so I don't see how every company enforcing a 50:50 ratio could possibly work with those numbers. It could also create some bitterness and tension if people feel women are only getting hired to hit a quota.

I think it would be great if more women did computing but I think the best way to achieve that is to get more kids coding, especially girls. If more girls go to college to do computing then more females will graduate and if the graduation rate hits a 50:50 ratio then the industry ratio will naturally adjust.

Personally, I would hate to feel like I was only hired as a diversity hire and not because I was seen as a valuable asset to the company.

The idea of gender quotas is incredibly simple. It’s about representation and role modelling. You’re not going to get children interested in coding if they’re not interested in coding in the first place, whether they’re either girls or boys. Hiring more women makes women more visible in the industry, and they are the role models for young girls (and indeed young boys) to look up to and aspire to.

Before gender quotas were even heard of, it was easy enough for me to put together a team of 13 devs and I’ll be honest with you, it was the guy who was the token diversity candidate because the guys I interviewed just didn’t come across well and I knew I wasn’t going to be able to work with them. I was putting together a team and I needed team players who would bring something different to the table, not the same old, same old that assumed by virtue of their gender they were better at their jobs and were a better fit for the team I was putting together. James Damore types basically. Even at the interview stage I knew I couldn’t be listening to their shìte if I had to be listening to that every day. I preferred people who were positive and committed and I chose the women I did not because of any gender quotas (which I think like any idea are good if it’s implemented properly, bad if it’s as you point out just a token hire just to show how diverse a company is), but some people are still of the opinion that the best person for the job is the one who is the most qualified. Far too often in my experience, the type of person who has that mindset isn’t a team player. They’re thinking they’d hire themselves, whereas the reasons they would hire themselves aren’t necessarily what potential employers are looking for.

Rufeo

DanyTargaryen wrote: »

I'm a female software dev and have always considered myself to be a feminist but i don't think the gender quotas are the right way to go.

When I was in college I was one of seven girls in a class of 120 and not all of those seven graduated so I don't see how every company enforcing a 50:50 ratio could possibly work with those numbers. It could also create some bitterness and tension if people feel women are only getting hired to hit a quota.

I think it would be great if more women did computing but I think the best way to achieve that is to get more kids coding, especially girls. If more girls go to college to do computing then more females will graduate and if the graduation rate hits a 50:50 ratio then the industry ratio will naturally adjust.

Personally, I would hate to feel like I was only hired as a diversity hire and not because I was seen as a valuable asset to the company.

I wish more women would speak out like this.

This is a voice of reason.

antimatterx

They're BS, and it's sexist to both Male and Female.

Companies have to hire certain demographics to look good. So what if a company is all men, or all women, or all Asians. Who gives a ****.

If they happen to be the what possible group that company could hire, so be it.

Morgans

So, no one yet works in a place where a gender quota has been is in place. Seems to be a lot of complaining about something that has yet to be an issue.

Also, think its funny that there is an idea out there that in an interview/recruitment process that will clearly show that this one specific person who could do the job best. They rest are useless. When its far more realistic to think that a certain amount of people could do the job well, meet minimum set of criteria, bringing their own different skills to bear on it, amending the role with their personality.