Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orange Wizard]

so far as I understand it a lot of American AA works like so:

That's... remarkably reasonable. Assuming if by applicant pool they mean qualified applicants, of course. Wouldn't want to encourage hiring some guy off the street just for the incentives.

[Sheb]

OW, I found more about that directive. A) It has passed the European Parliament, as of October 2015 it was still waiting validation by the Council. As far as I can see, it's still there.

B) It's much less strong that what you seemed to be thinking. Here is the relevant part:

The Commission proposal sets a quantitative objective of a 40% presence of the under-represented sex among
non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges by 2020. Companies with a lower share will be
required to make appointments on the basis of a comparative analysis of the qualification of candidates by applying
clear, gender-neutral and unambiguous criteria. This approach guarantees that qualification and merit remain
the key criteria for a job on the board. Only where two candidates are equally qualified, priority shall be given to the
candidate of the under-represented sex.
The Directive fully respects the principle of subsidiarity and offers considerable flexibility in choosing the means to
achieve that progress. It is for each Member State to define how it wishes to provide in its national legislation that
the selection for election or appointment to the posts of non-executive directors is to be carried out on the basis
of a comparative assessment. The criteria for board positions are to be established by the companies themselves.
It does not prescribe a “one size fits all solution” but recognises that some Member States have chosen or will still
choose another promising option for improving gender balance on company boards. It allows those Member States
to pursue this course and not apply the procedural requirements of the Directive on condition that their approach
delivers concrete results.
The measure is meant to be temporary and in principle is set to expire in 2028

So, it's not "employers always have to favour women when choosing from employee with the same qualification". It's "there is a soft quota of 40% for executive positions. If a company has less than 40% of one gender on its board, and is choosing from two equally-qualified people to promote, it must choose the one from the underrepresented gender, until the rule expire in 2028".

So yeah, your fear were mostly unfounded. Is that still "the kind of things you're protesting"?

[mainiac]

Hey guys, here's a fun game.  Preface every one of Orange Wizards posts with "I'm not racist but..."

[Orange Wizard]

Hey guys, here's a fun game.  Preface every one of Orange Wizards posts with "I'm not racist but..."

40% sure my whole thing here was "guys I don't think it's a good idea to counter prejudice with prejudice" which was eventually countered by "OW you dork it's not actually prejudice". When did I actually sound racist?

So yeah, your fear were mostly unfounded.

Apparently.

[Lord Shonus]

As somebody who has been told in a job interview "There was a mistake. You are white, and we don't hire whites, so you might as well leave." and also told in a legal consultation that "Yes, your termination was fraudulent but there's no chance a jury's going to side with a man in a case like this" I can't help but think that there is a strong ivory tower effect going on here.

[sluissa]

Yeah, I'd love to have source if that happens all the time. It seems to have to do with anti-dsicrimation statutes, not with AA too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-04-22/fear-of-firing

I have several instances of anecdotal evidence as well, but we all know how well that flies around here.

[Playergamer]

How about some news to get back on topic? Maybe terrorism?

[mainiac]

When did I actually sound racist?

Maybe the time when presented with a hypothetical candidate who was equally qualified you leapt to the assumption that certain people are going to be less qualified?  If your brain immediately jumps over the "equally qualified" people part then it's probably taking a certain shortcut...

Besides, it's not like I ever actually called you racist.  Why would you jump to such a ridiculous assumption?  Just because I talked about you in the context of racism and making preemptive judgement doesn't mean you can just label me like that.  What are you?  The Political Correctness police?

As somebody who has been told in a job interview "There was a mistake. You are white, and we don't hire whites, so you might as well leave." and also told in a legal consultation that "Yes, your termination was fraudulent but there's no chance a jury's going to side with a man in a case like this" I can't help but think that there is a strong ivory tower effect going on here.

Oooooh, please tell us more.  What amazing job opportunity did you miss out on?

[Wolfhunter107]

Besides, it's not like I ever actually called you racist.  Why would you jump to such a ridiculous assumption?

You came pretty close, though.

Hey guys, here's a fun game.  Preface every one of Orange Wizards posts with "I'm not racist but..."

[Strife26]

Impressive levels of snoby assholery thread! Keep up the good work and I'll put everyone in for a promotion and you can all be Bay Watcher Level 2's

[Shadowlord]

Impressive levels of snoby assholery thread! Keep up the good work and I'll put everyone in for a promotion and you can all be Bay Watcher Level 2's

I'm a bay watcher, I'm a bay watcher
Watchin' bays go by, hey, my my

[Sheb]

Oooooh, please tell us more.  What amazing job opportunity did you miss out on?

Acutally, I'd love more details too if you don't mind sharing them, and I say this without mainiac's snark.

[SalmonGod]

I don't have time to finish reading the rest of the most recent page before I run back to work from lunch, so I don't know if the discussion has moved on yet... but it doesn't look like it will.  And this affirmative action conversation is frustrating as shit to read.

This isn't complicated.

You can't just completely fuck up a group of people's shit for hundreds of years, and then expect them to have equal opportunity as soon as the practice of actively fucking up their shit ceases.  Their shit will still be fucked up for some time, and it will remain fucked up for a very long time if they're left to fix their shit on their own with the negligible resources they have available to them when you suddenly decide to be hands off.

If society were a footrace, it would be like breaking the competition's kneecaps, and then expecting them to be able to keep up with you just because you're no longer actively in the process of breaking their kneecaps.

And yes, actively taking steps to fix huge social problems is messy work, no matter what the subject.

[Shadowlord]

You can't just completely fuck up a group of people's shit for hundreds of years, and then expect them to have equal opportunity as soon as the practice of actively fucking up their shit ceases.  Their shit will still be fucked up for some time, and it will remain fucked up for a very long time if they're left to fix their shit on their own with the negligible resources they have available to them when you suddenly decide to be hands off.

Also, their shit is still being fucked up.

[Lord Shonus]

Acutally, I'd love more details too if you don't mind sharing them, and I say this without mainiac's snark.

Wasn't anything special - just boxing up auto parts for shipment at a local reseller. That's not the point. The point is that it was a job, and (just like the soldering job I was refused explicitly because I'm not a woman, or when the manager at my last long-term employer manufactured a harassment incident so I wouldn't be in a position to expose their sabotage of the company for personal gain) it was an open-and-shut case of direct discrimination that is treated as perfectly OK because of "white male privilege", and objecting to it gets people slandered as racist or sexist. It's an ivory-tower effect where analyzing the Big Picture has a tendency to ignore a lot of what you see at ground level.

This is why you hear so many things like "if you intellectuals don't like it, I don't give a shit. There's a lot more of us common folk then there ever will be of you", and a big reason it is so hard to sell a lot of ideas to Flyover Country.