For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1523626
Well indeed, they're getting rid of engineers. Because of course a company which develops and implements telecommunications networks doesn't need engineers...

As for employment law, they're mostly getting round it by asking for voluntary redundancies.

leiafee wrote:Wanna trade? I'm sure either me or her would take your flavour of unfairness over ours.


Harassment, intimidation and bullying is awful. But it has nothing to do with blatantly sexist company policy.
#1523635
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
Paul_Sengupta wrote:Harassment, intimidation and bullying is awful. But it has nothing to do with blatantly sexist company policy.


Oh yes it does.

Company policies and company culture and with very little else.

As in 'get someone younger and cheaper to replace the older expensive ones.' :twisted:
#1523668
I feel very strongly that women are entirely the equal of men. That is not to say they are the same, thankfully.

When I was a Filton a few years ago a female was made apprentice of the year, just because she was the best by far. She finished her apprenticeship early on merit and was offered a place in the drawing office as that was were she wanted to go. But even she did occasionally complain that she was held back by being female!

I also worked with a really useless engineer. She had worked at Boeing and as a part native American part Chinese lady she had all sorts of opportunities thrown at her and ended up as a designer just so Boeing could meet diversity targets. Unfortunately she didn't have a clue!

I really respected the first one as she was a good engineer, although it was tempered by her unrealistic (in my eyes) complaints about discrimination. The second I was never going to respect as an engineer however many bits of paper she had. But it was not because she was a woman.

As for CV. Well done her for enjoying flying and for flying to Iceland and back. Its not a great achievement but its not insignificant either. One of my friends flew his new Cirrus back from the states. I'm impressed with that as well. But its got nothing to do with gender.
#1523676
I think I commented on a thread the other day about my wife, the highly successful system engineer. She made a decent sport out of ripping chauvinists into tiny bits.

Not all her detractors were male, it should be said.

Having come from a relatively disadvantaged background, and a fierce advocate of meritocracy - I will say again I'm all for equal opportunity, as long as it doesn't become "positive" discrimination.
Nick, cockney steve liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1523706
After 40+ years as an engineer of one sort or another, the common theme is that most of the people who do the persistence and dedication part of the job are blokes. In daylight hours, and on predictable shifts, I work with some great women. I like working for and with women - they tend to be tidier and more self-disciplined. But most of them seem to be too smart to end up with the hard yards. It is changing but very slowly.

I read the first part of this and the IWD thread in yet another hotel in a dull town after a long day, looked around the restaurant, and it was around 95% blokes.

Diversity on the BBC model is b*llocks.

The people in the larger pool have had to compete with each other. All the LGBTQZXCVBNM stuff is really about special pleading. The extreme is that if you find the one-legged bestialist who only favours intersex angora goats, they can have any job they like to fulfil the quota. So by embracing diversity you automatically sacrifice talent.
Charles Hunt liked this
#1523740
Pete L wrote: So by embracing diversity you automatically sacrifice talent.


Sorry, but that is ****! Are you really saying that there is no talent outside of the established pool and that within the established pool everyone is talented?

You must be delighted with the quality of the white, middle class, privately educated politicians who run the country and the white, male, middle aged board members who run our banks, trains, 'phones and power networks. Such talent in uniformity!
Mike Tango, karlbown, jerry_atrick and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1523819
The BBC is setting a quota, which will force them to recruit from several smaller self-defining talent pools. That will reduce mean quality. The chances of finding the highest quality candidate in the smaller pool are simply smaller. And if any of their percentages are wrong, their policy will be discriminatory.

Don't get me wrong - I've always recruited from the widest talent pool I can reach. But only on what people can do.
By cockney steve
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1523861
Best for the job, is what counts. All this Carp about "forced" diversity will merely reduce the country to mediocrity. If it could be guaranteed that the "minority" applicant was the best qualified to do the job, rather just capable , but "ticked the diversity- box" as well, that would be ideal......but in practice, it rarely happens.
Mate's MOT station has a couple of part-time testers...one's a girl, the other has a bit of a speech impediment , which can make conversation a bit trying. Both do a good job, without fear or favour. Happy to let them do any of my tests (take in about 10 a year) I usually have a brew and natter with my mate....if there's any problems, the tester will call me They'll also alert to anything that could fo with a bit of looking at now, to save in the future

Once worked with a technician who had a false leg. took a bit of time to creak along from place to place, but his job was benchwork on delicate optical stuff and he was damned good at it.
#1523870
I'm all for "best for the job"

The difficult bit is when the person selecting "the best" has a preconceived idea of what is best. With the best will in the world that can be self limiting.

I think positive discrimination has its place and can actually improve the outcome. But its by no means guaranteed and needs to be judged by results.
User avatar
By leiafee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1523899
Statiscally measurable that taking names off CVs increases the amount of both women and ethnic minorities invited for interview.

Statstically measurable that all else being equal companies with more parity amung the direrctors make more money.

convincing me me that "it's all about the talent' is not going to be possible while those things remain true.

Anecotes aren't evidence.

Nice people on a local level who have genuinely managed to free themselves even from their unconcsious biases aren't evidence, even if it's true. And they can't fix it on a systematic level.

Positive discrimination doesn't feel nice for those on the wrong side of that. I get that.

Believe me I seriously get that. After standing at a tech recruitment show for our apprenticeship programme yesterday and being ignored in favour of my less experience male colleague believe you me I get that...

So I can't weep when someone else, who hasn't had to suck it up before now has to for a while.
kanga, nallen, Ben K liked this
#1523900
leiafee wrote:Statiscally measurable that taking names off CVs increases the amount of both women and ethnic minorities invited for interview.

So I can't weep when someone else, who hasn't had to suck it up before now has to for a while.


My faculty started doing blind marking in the late 80s. Being academic psychologists they were well aware of unconscious bias, but their trials proved that removing the names had a statistically significant difference.

Obviously the staff weren't all white male.

Not sure I get your suck it up comment btw.... :oops:
#1523902
GolfHotel wrote:I'm all for "best for the job"

The difficult bit is when the person selecting "the best" has a preconceived idea of what is best. With the best will in the world that can be self limiting.

I think positive discrimination has its place and can actually improve the outcome. But its by no means guaranteed and needs to be judged by results.


Keeping it very simple. If you have a pool of 10 men and 2 women doing more or less the same job. You put them through blind marked psychometric testing - ignoring the results of that (as the result didn't give the "desired result") - you promote one of the women to management (or more technically demanding) level in another team/area based on "positive discrimination", even though she hasn't shown particularly strong aptitude in that area.

She then gets shown to be incapable of delivering, do you demote her?

That's what judging by results would mean.
#1523907
OCB wrote:
GolfHotel wrote:I'm all for "best for the job"

The difficult bit is when the person selecting "the best" has a preconceived idea of what is best. With the best will in the world that can be self limiting.

I think positive discrimination has its place and can actually improve the outcome. But its by no means guaranteed and needs to be judged by results.


Keeping it very simple. If you have a pool of 10 men and 2 women doing more or less the same job. You put them through blind marked psychometric testing - ignoring the results of that (as the result didn't give the "desired result") - you promote one of the women to management (or more technically demanding) level in another team/area based on "positive discrimination", even though she hasn't shown particularly strong aptitude in that area.

She then gets shown to be incapable of delivering, do you demote her?

That's what judging by results would mean.


Firstly I would worry that only 16% of staff were female.

Putting that aside I would not ignore results of a selection process.

If I was not sure of a selection I would make it a temporary post. If someone can't do a job then they don't stay in post.

Going back to the issue of 16% female staff. That is were the positive discrimination is needed. The original recruitment process needs a good overhaul. But it may not be possible to achieve anything like balanced reruitment. The same applies to minorities.