Work sexism

03-11-2015 11:36PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why did he tell you?

Because he's apparently the worlds worst HR manager, and lacks the quality most required for the job, discretion.

Fox_In_Socks · 04-11-2015 12:05AM

Your average HR person lacks a soul. Their human resource that they are looking out for, is not you, you unique snowflakem you, but the company's human pool of which they need to siphon, mine and own.

What would happen would be that all applications are accepted and the "unsuccessful" ones are consigned to the shredder.

Eating processed porkies cause cancer, what do telling porkies cause?:pac:

Specialun · 04-11-2015 12:10AM

Candie wrote: »

Because he's apparently the worlds worst HR manager, and lacks the quality most required for the job, discretion.

You need to go visit specsavers or else read things properly before trying to be a smart arse. Nowhere have i said that he/she was a hr manager..but hey dont let that get in the way of your thanks whoring

Gone Drinking · 04-11-2015 12:34AM

I work in a large tech company also. They've the same push on for women in the work place currently. It's well known internally but will never be officially said of course.

Myself and some decent candidates were done out a position in a similar case only six months ago.

All you can do is move on and look for the next one bud.

tritium · 04-11-2015 12:45AM

Meh, not right, but I've been done out of a promotion for fairly blatant sexism reasons in the past (female hiring head of department wanted to look after her female friend, also had a real problem with men in general....). It took me about 2 months to find a new job and took the company about 5 minutes more to realise that actually they had no-one else who either (i) understood what I did or (ii) could fill my role. Unfortunately I had to point out that they were unsuccessful in their application to keep me, in spite of my being very impressed by their credentials they weren't the successful candidate

A few years on and most of the employees in the former role have left (I may have taken a few) or are miserable. Meanwhile the new role turned out to be a gateway to a career path I absolutely love and where my skills are really respected.

If that's how a company treats people you need to ask if you want to be there. In spite of the recession it's still relatively easy to move

Peter Anthony · 04-11-2015 12:46AM

Is this not common knowledge? Multinational companies have "quotas" to be filled, so in cases like this a woman will get the job even if 20 men are more qualified. It's the same with different races/minorities.

It is discrimination but I bet they cover themselves, also most of the time they would never tell you this because Legal action would be taken. Not sure why your pal bothered to tell you. You could ask a solicitor about it.

Peter Anthony · 04-11-2015 12:47AM

tritium wrote: »

Meh, not right, but I've been done out of a promotion for fairly blatant sexism reasons in the past (female hiring head of department wanted to look after her female friend). It took me about 2 months to find a new job and took the company about 5 minutes more to realise that actually they had no-one else who either (i) understood what I did or (ii) could fill my role. Unfortunately I had to point out that they were unsuccessful in their application to keep me, in spite of my being very impressed by their credentials they weren't the successful candidate A few years on and most of the employees in the former role have left (I may have taken a few) or are miserable.....

If that's how a company treats people you need to ask if you want to be there. In spite of the recession it's still relatively easy to move

I agree I wouldnt be part of any organisation that discriminates against you. Lifes too short and they need to be called on their bull****, it isnt legal

hatrickpatrick · 04-11-2015 12:52AM

Specialun wrote: »

I work in a multinational..standard joint

I applied for aTeam management role internally..not on my team but a new team

Today i got a mail from a lad in HR to go for a cuppa to discuss my application..i know him a while so i knew he would be honest

He told me that i shouldnt bother pushing my application as the powers that be have said that the role must be filled by a woman..at the moment they only have one external female applicant who nobody knows of

Iget that they want to increase the amount of women in tech companies to make them less of acockfest but isnt this just reverse discrimination/sexism

I wish people would stop using the phrase "reverse sexism". It's sexism. Who it's directed at doesn't change the meaning of the word.

I'd suggest taking them to court, but the trouble is that you don't have any concrete evidence to go on, unless the HR lad would back you up.

Azalea · 04-11-2015 12:57AM

tritium wrote: »

Meh, not right, but I've been done out of a promotion for fairly blatant sexism reasons in the past (female hiring head of department wanted to look after her female friend)

But was it because of sexist reasons though? I mean, what if she wanted to look after her male friend?

I did freelance work for a company a few years back and then they stopped calling me because the manager wanted to give the hours to his male friend. I know I didn't have any rights because I was freelance, but it never struck me that it was for sexist reasons - just nepotism reasons.

I don't like the idea of gender quotas at all either by the way - should be best person for the job.

Peter Anthony · 04-11-2015 12:59AM

Azalea wrote: »

But was it because of sexist reasons though? I mean, what if she wanted to look after her male friend?

I did freelance work for a company a few years back and then they stopped calling me because the manager wanted to give the hours to his male friend. I know I didn't have any rights because I was freelance, but it never struck me that it was for sexist reasons - just nepotism reasons.

I don't like the idea of gender quotas at all either by the way - should be best person for the job.

Good point there, youre most likely right on that scenario

shanered · 04-11-2015 01:04AM

Sure they're doing the same thing with the dail, its a top down thing really isnt it.

BrianD3 · 04-11-2015 01:05AM

This is not news, unofficial gender quotas favouring females are now common in large organisations and the public sector. Hiring females is good PR and good PR is of great importance in today's world. Google the numerous articles about the need to achieve gender balance in various organisations eg Intel, Easyjet, the US Army and others. Also look at comments from various sources on how the banking crisis wouldn't have been as bad if there had been more women and less men in senior positions in the banks.

Apparently, the banking crisis was "very male" - quote from the European Commission
http://www.nwci.ie/?/news/article/gender_balance_should_have_been_priority_for_the_banking_inquiry_from_the_o

While no company is going to have a documented procedure to discriminate against males in a illegal manner, once companies start getting into the realm of "encouraging" women and "aspiring" to a certain gender ratio, its inevitable that females are going to be favoured, maybe subconsciously and based on "feelings". Companies can get away with this as interviews are subjective anyway and it's human beings not robots that are doing the interviewing.

However in small business the exact opposite is the case - any woman who might get pregnant is likely to be discriminated against. Again, no business will be stupid enough to have a written policy stating this.

Paulzx · 04-11-2015 01:21AM

Why are people surprised?

Sure haven't we enshrined a gender quota system into our democratic process and decided to force political parties into selecting candidates based on gender.

Why then should the workforce be any different?

I don't give a sh*it about someones gender in either politics or the workplace. I do give a sh*t that the best person gets the position irrespective of gender.

To me quotas are just another form of discrimination replacing the existing or historically unacceptable ones.

RDM_83 again · 04-11-2015 01:27AM

Candie wrote: »

Seriously, I get sick of this crap.

I didn't get the memo. I never heard of everyone knowing this, or everyone agreeing this. Because everyone doesn't.

The odd nutter, yes. EVERYONE...no.

But lets pretend anyway, right?

Tails up chaps!

Stheno wrote: »

Never been a consideration in organisations I've worked in at a fairly senior level.

For external candidates experience will trump gender almost all of the time tbh.

Its nice and easy to go with the idea that its simply angry bitter MRA's being paranoid but is it true.

Look at this study

Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced)

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full

If there was evidence of such a systemic bias against female candidates there would be outcry and deep heartfelt debate, so yeah I would go with the idea that its ok to be sexist against men, unless of course you want to completely rework the modern meaning of sexism.

Azalea · 04-11-2015 01:31AM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its nice and easy to go with the idea that its simply angry bitter MRA's being paranoid but is it true.

Look at this study

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.full

If there was evidence of such a systemic bias against female candidates there would be outcry and deep heartfelt debate, so yeah I would go with the idea that its ok to be sexist against men, unless of course you want to completely rework the modern meaning of sexism.

That's not what Candie is saying at all from what I can tell - just that the "Everyone knows it's ok to be sexist against men" stuff brings nothing to the table. I'd bet nobody on this thread agrees it's ok to be sexist to men.

Satts · 04-11-2015 01:33AM

Why wouldn't employers pick women first ?

Aren't they working two months for free, undercutting men.

Stheno · 04-11-2015 01:33AM

Satts wrote: »

Why wouldn't employers pick women first ?

Aren't they working two months for free, undercutting men.

Where you getting that from?

Mesrine65 · 04-11-2015 01:36AM

KungPao wrote: »

HR?

RDM_83 again · 04-11-2015 01:39AM

Azalea wrote: »

That's not what Candie is saying at all from what I can tell - just that the "Everyone knows it's ok to be sexist against men" stuff brings nothing to the table. I'd bet nobody on this thread agrees it's ok to be sexist to men.

Everybody knows it not "ok" in theory, but everybody also knows that its actually ok in practice because unless it ridiculously blatant there is no consequence to it.

(Two male sexism threads at the same time, we just need a false rape accusation thread and we have the ball rolling on a nice entertaining Gender War O:-) )

Satts · 04-11-2015 01:40AM

Stheno wrote: »

Where you getting that from?

Irish Examiner 3 days ago.

Google "women working two months for free"

Stheno · 04-11-2015 01:47AM

Satts wrote: »

Irish Examiner 3 days ago.

Google "women working two months for free"

Right, not learned to put in a link yet?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pay-gap-women-work-2-months-for-free-362400.html

Seriously lazy journalisim focusing on generalist statements.

Have a look at this

Wibbs wrote: »

It came from the National Women's council of Ireland's report . This is the relevant part;

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men. In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.
For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.

Emphasis mine. Note how they don't come out straight and say that childless women earn 17% more on average. Blink and you'd miss it kinda thing. You'll also note that they mention women do better in education than men, yet little focus is given by society to why men are failing in that area.

Shows that depending on the family demographics of women, they can earn up to 17% more than equivalent men.

Ironically a report from the same Womens Council spouting the opposite in the examiner article.

Satts · 04-11-2015 02:15AM

Stheno wrote: »

Right, not learned to put in a link yet?

No I haven't, not on this iPad anyway, and I have no intention of learning.
Yes on my laptop, but it's broken and I'm looking for a new one.

Stheno · 04-11-2015 02:23AM

Satts wrote: »

No I haven't, not on this iPad anyway, and I have no intention of learning.
Yes on my laptop, but it's broken and I'm looking for a new one.

Ok

Well if you read through that report, it's a bit more thorough than that very lazy journalism you referred to, which actually says women work 7 weeks for free, two months is actually 8.66 weeks of the calendar year.

The report references women in different stages of life, with different familial/no familial commitments, and finds that those women with no family constraints earn more than men who are their equivalent to the tune of 17% more per year.

Given that 7 weeks is 13.5% of a year, and 17% of a year in terms of weeks is 8.84, one could validly use the report that I've quoted to state that men work 3.5% more to earn the same as some women, or they work 3.5% more for free to be on pay parity with some women.

Lazy generalisations on subjects like this don't work.

Satts · 04-11-2015 02:58AM

Stheno wrote: »

Ok

Well if you read through that report, it's a bit more thorough than that very lazy journalism you referred to, which actually says women work 7 weeks for free, two months is actually 8.66 weeks of the calendar year.

The report references women in different stages of life, with different familial/no familial commitments, and finds that those women with no family constraints earn more than men who are their equivalent to the tune of 17% more per year.

Given that 7 weeks is 13.5% of a year, and 17% of a year in terms of weeks is 8.84, one could validly use the report that I've quoted to state that men work 3.5% more to earn the same as some women, or they work 3.5% more for free to be on pay parity with some women.

Lazy generalisations on subjects like this don't work.

According to Sarah Carey in the Irish Independent 19/April/2015, only 18% of Irish women have no children.
So that 17% extra pay you refer to doesn't apply to many women.

Stheno · 04-11-2015 03:03AM

Satts wrote: »

According to Sarah Carey in the Irish Independent 19/April/2015, only 18% of Irish women have no children.
So that 17% extra pay you refer to doesn't apply to many women.

Read the report I linkedto and stop generalizing

ronjo · 04-11-2015 10:29AM

Stheno wrote: »

Read the report I linkedto and stop generalizing

And what do you think of the link RDM put?

allibastor · 04-11-2015 10:41AM

Tazium wrote: »

Reads as if you are being discriminated on the basis of gender which is a no-no for any HR department. Ask for it in writing.

That is why he was asked to go for a cuppa, keeping it off the record and informing a friend of the chances of the role.

Its not what you know, only what you can prove in court!

Tar.Aldarion · 04-11-2015 10:46AM

The guy was telling you the truth off the record, would be pretty easy to see through a lie like that when a man got the position.

Sleepy · 04-11-2015 11:54AM

OP, apply anyway and if / when you don't get the role ask for written feedback explaining why you weren't a successful candidate.

It's unlikely that the response will include anything as blatant as "because your a man" but you never know, those who majored in HR when I was doing a Commerce degree were the left overs who couldn't handle the intellectual rigours of Marketing*

(*anyone with a three digit IQ majored in Accounting, Economics or MIS)

ToddyDoody · 04-11-2015 12:38PM

Stheno wrote: »

Why did you give preference to female candidates?

And was the person who was ultimately hired, the most qualified, experienced fit for the role?

What if qualifications and experience are equivalent, but the boss likes a bit of skirt?

Work sexism

Comments