"Discrimination at Work" Topic

This is really bothering me, so I'll vent here.

What do you think of an organization that deliberately discards resumes from highly qualified males because they are not female?

Where I work, a high level position requiring specific background experience has become available and we advertised in the news paper for it. I'm not involved in the selection process but work very closely with another manager who is and he is just as bothered by this.

15 applicants submitted resumes. There are three people on the interview committee reviewing these – the manager I refered to, another male manager and a woman from our HUman Resources department, which I suspect is even more ed up than most HR organization I've ever encountered.

The two male managers both independently created a shortlist based on the qualification and experience cited in the resumes and ended up with the exact same results; 4 men and 1 woman. The HR person, who of course has no real understanding of the position nor experience with our organization, came up with a totally different sort list of 5 women only, no men.

The two managers were told to redo their short lists so that only women would be interviewed.

I wold expect this sort of thing in the 80s and early 90s, but this is just such blatant discrimination. I feel like giving an anonymous tip to the local press about this, but won't because it will probably get the manager who is involved in this in trouble. Jesus, they have us literally by the gonads!

On top of it all, there is apparently some legislation the HR woman is quoting that allows HR to interceded like this.

If I indicated what sort of position this is, you would be aghast that our organization is not basing it on qualified experience alone. Aghast.

This should bother anyone but it's particularly grating for me. In 1991, I left the Army on a medical release, I had developed diabetes. The army infrastructure had very generously directly advised me to apply for a number of civilian jobs which were a perfect fit for my tank and armour experience and I was encouraged to do so. Both jobs were awarded to someone else. When I made inquiries, I was told that both jobs were directed by higher ups to be awarded to female applicants. It didn't really matter that I was better qualified from an experience and education stand point or that I had three children younger than 8 years old to support – I wasn't a female and therefore did not get the jobs (I persevered, of course and ended up working, though not in a military capacity).

When I made formal complaints, I was told by the organization that handled civilian employee hiring for the Department of National Defence that I was a "victim of the times" and that I should forget applying for any civilian job at the level for which I was qualified because I was male.

That was 1991. I thought all that crap was no longer necessary, and now we're doing it again where I am. It really is maddening.

I can't go anywhere (for fear of getting the other manager in hot water), so I'm whispering my anger and resentment here.

Thanks for reading.
--
Tim

You should bounce this off a lawyer. If the law is going to have this kind of impact, we should be sure it's understood correctly. Sometimes people see in the law what they want to see. I'll bet there's somewhere you could email and get a relatively quick answer. You would want to run this by a lawyer familiar with your state.

Andrew

Public or private 'organization'?

I'm opposed to so-called 'positive discrimination' so you have my full sympathy. Of course the recruitment and selection process is all about discrimination – we discriminate in favour of the better qualified, more experienced applicant – but discrimination based on something completely irrelevant to the position, in this case sex, is just unfair, no matter which way the bias falls.

I also doubt that the four additional shortlisted women would be happy to know that the only reason they have a shot is because they're female. I suspect they'd rather succeed or fail on their own merits rather than be given a patronising helping hand.

'positive discrimination'

What's described is discrimination, plain and simple. The "positive" aspect only applies between otherwise equally suited candidates.

Jmrino, it's public.

Parmenion, you're quite right about discrimination there. But I find this as outrageous as it would be as if the interview committee had taken the female applicants and discarded their resumes without even looking at them.

Andrew, you are right, however, it's not affecting me (sigh, I sound like the "by the time they came for me, there was no left to say anything" sort, don't I? ) and again, I am afraid of getting the manager who has confided in me into hot water. I've begged and begged him to contact a friend I have a t a local paper "anonymously", but he's too afraid they will trace it back to him.

It's really a sobering exercise in how an organization can enforce bad things and how brave a whistle blower must be. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but its the feared consequences on the other guy that stops me from getting hold of the above mentioned newspaper guy, who is a military modeler and collector (not a gamer, though) of warhammer figures.

Thanks to all who respond, at the very least, it's therapeutic for me to read your responses and think of responses for them.
--
Tim

It's pretty horrifying what kind of 'discrimination' goes on all over the place. Employers are very often looking for a certain kind of employee and will make their choice first and then justify it. And I have seen more than one incidence of persons given the job based solely one looks (and it was not a modeling/acting job).

Most of us know, but some might not… You are in Canada, so the bulk of membership (UK and US) cannot help with direct legal advise.

Your manager friend needs to ask why there is a need to hire females into the organization. This may not be just for the position. This sounds like an overall strategy with the statute for female preference you ran into years ago as the justification.

Parmenion, you're quite right about discrimination there. But I find this as outrageous as it would be as if the interview committee had taken the female applicants and discarded their resumes without even looking at them.

I completely agree, my point about the use of discrimination was purely a technical one. This is clearly a case of unfair discrimination and I share your anger about it.

If it is a public organization, then their hiring practices should be transparent. The newspaper person should be able to simply inquire about the filling of the position and available canidates from the HR department. They would have to provide information about how many people applied, how many interviewed, qualifications, etc…..

Public money = public scrutiny.

I know that were I work, there are two offices that males consider themselves the "wrong" gender. Both office head are female.

When my sons were in elementary school, they started to feel the same way. For example, you looked on the lobby wall at the names of "Student of the Week", not one boy.

Hi Tim

As a former manager in the Canadian Government I can advise you that what your managers are doing is allowable under the equity policies of the Federal Government.

Four targeted groups have been identified : Women, First Nation/Inuit, disabled and visible minorities. All sections of the Federal Government are required to submit periodic lists identifying the proportion of all positions occupied by the targeted groups. In situations where non targeted groups occupy a higher proportion of designated equity positions then the average, management is authorized to initiate a selection process,( new hire or competition) and restrict that process to targeted groups only.

One of the criteria in rating senior managers is the equity balance within their areas of supervision. So as a non disabled, non first nation/visible minority, male you will have less opportunities for advancement.

This policy has been challenged unsuccessfully in both the staffing appeal and legal courts but as it is the "law of the land" passed by Parliament a court does not have the right to overturn it. Given the fact that when added together the targeted groups are a majority of voters I do not see any foreseeable change.

So as a non disabled…

He's a diabetic, with onset during military service.

Oddly, Ditto and I were both diagnosed in the same year while on active duty. However I'm in the US.

I'm a Type 1 diabetic, with onset during active military service. So in the US, I am a protected minority.

(A fact I mention LOUDLY and CLEARLY at every single job interview.)

Sorry I was trying to be generic using "you". Jim can designate himself as disabled and then qualify as a targeted group. However, in some circumstances selection processes "can" be limited to only one group. for example, female.

I read all of this and thank my stars that I am no longer in government service. I now work in a 95% male environment in railway vehicle maintenance. The 3 women we do have on site don't like each other enough to form a pressure group.

perhaps there are laws allowing it. On the other hand, if that is the case, surely the job advert or whatever should have made it clear. If they (ie the company) allow. applications from men, then I would assume that they are leaving themselves open to a claim.

It is just this kind of thing that, in my view, will blow up someday. The organisations will eventually fail because they are not getting the best people for the job, society will fail due to the eventual backlash from the majority that are being discriminated against.

Frankly, so-called positive discrimination appalls me just as much as the negative kind – in fact, there is no difference. By definition, positively discriminate for one person means that you are negatively discriminating against another.

Ugh.

Ditto, I think you should get your friend to talk to a lawyer – and maybe then ask the lawyer to talk to the media.

If its for a pole dancer, I'm all in favor of it.

Otherwise, its stinks.

Alxbates suggests that the Media be involved, that is normally an excellent suggestion, but, unfortunately one of the reasons "equity" was brought in was media stories on how few women, native, disabled ,etc., managers there were.

Originally equity came into play only when a number of candidates were judged to be equal based on the merit principle and in this situation the actual first postings would choose any target groups first with the assumption being that the rest of the qualified group would be picked up later. However with ratios coming into play separate processes can now be used. These may or may not be advertised as such.

Garrison, unfortunately the "majority" are not being discriminated against . If you figure women are 50% of the population to begin with, then add in visible minorities
( non -white), aboriginal people and the disabled you have the majority. The only non targeted groups are Caucasian non-disabled males. In this pc era how much sympathy would they get claiming discrimination. This is really a situation of a group paying for the sins of their fathers

FYI, this issue is one of the reasons why I am a former manager who retired early. You can take so much.

This is the sort of stupid crap that often results from poorly considered, well-intentioned laws.

I tend to try to discourage people from voting for such things, but in general, that ship has sailed.
-Kle.

Point taken Mapleleaf. Though the principle I stand by, together with the backlash idea – though the backlash will probably be aimed at specific minorities. Also, the 'majority' of people 'qualified' for particular jobs are usually being discriminated against.

What I really find scary in this is that the HR person has no idea about the job and seems to be basing her decisions on gender alone…

That should send up red flags as to the hiring practices of this company…

That should set up flags as to the survivability of the company!

Seems to me that gender-based discrimination worked very well for men for the last, oh, say, 10,000 years (look around at the stubborn wage differential and gendered-division in management and in wealth for some evidence of this).

This has created a systemic barrier for women that employment equity laws are designed to begin to remedy. Perhaps it is not a perfect remedy (and perhaps the HR wonk is bit gung-ho), yet it seems to be better than perpetuating the existing distribution of employment opportunities that has resulted in the economic subjugation of women.

I think it is easy to yell "reverse discrimination". Or more accurately "discrimination". Or, perhaps even more accurately, "discrimination that I'm not in favour of". Yet don't you want your wives, daughters and sisters to have a decent chance to make their way in the world--a world where women's ability and skill have consistently and intentionally been ignored for generations because of their gender?

Bob in Edmonton

Yes. But based on their ability and skill, not because someone has a quota to fill.

Bob,

Just because men messed it up for 10000yrs, doesn't mean we should overcompensate in the other direction and mess it up all over again.

Steve P

Seems to me that gender-based discrimination worked very well for men for the last, oh, say, 10,000 years

Applying sins of dead generations to the present? How is your statement NOT discrimination?

This has created a systemic barrier for women that employment equity laws are designed to begin to remedy.

I would argue the remedy is here. Women have higher college graduation rates and higher academic scores. The results curve of Workplace outcomes will show improvement last as the effects of educational redress are long term. Applying pressure at the END of this process to artificially effect change is morally bankrupt and destructive.

…yet it seems to be better than perpetuating the existing distribution of employment opportunities that has resulted in the economic subjugation of women.

Straw Man argument. No one advocates "perpetuating" inequality. But your advocacy of discrimination to end discrimination creates a vicious cycle that rewards the best group identity politicians at the expense of entrepreneurial growth.

Yet don't you want your wives, daughters and sisters to have a decent chance to make their way in the world

So if I disagree with your particular application of discrimination I want my daughter to fail? I reject your ridiculous false choice argument. My daughter will have the full benefit of educational preparation and because of battles already fought and won she will have equal opportunities when she is grown.

@Mapleleaf: How are things in China? Are you consulting there?

I think it is easy to yell "reverse discrimination". Or more accurately "discrimination". Or, perhaps even more accurately, "discrimination that I'm not in favour of". Yet don't you want your wives, daughters and sisters to have a decent chance to make their way in the world-

That is the most idiotic statement I have ever read. And obviously from someone who has never had to face this sort of thing.

I have. Both as the victim of it and as a manager in an organization that is being forced to do it.

How in bleeding hell does my concern for my wife and daughter have anything to do with fairness in hiring?

It's easy for you to spew this from a safe position. You try supporting your young daughter and being jobless and then being told you shouldn't bother to apply for jobs you're well qualified for because you are male and white. Then come back with this self-righteous garbage.

Idiotic, moronic statement.
--
Tim

Here, here.