Mining association launches regulations to diversify

[TomFord1980]

I enjoy debating issues which should be apparent from my posting history. Engaging idiotic posts is not debate.

You have just proven my case again!

 

[TomFord1980]

Do you have a mirror...............typical pot calling kettle black right wing hypocrite?

Do you have a mirror...............typical pot calling kettle black right wing hypocrite?

The lefties like to come in droves, I do admire that about you.

 

[basketcase]

No surprise that the anti-gay activists are also anti-women activists.

 

[JohnLarue]

We need quotas because we cannot trust people to behave unequivocally and because people are biased.

that is sooo messed up

you must be some kind of extra special loonie who sits in judgement of society and claims

we cannot trust people to behave unequivocally

White people will prefer white people. Minorities will prefer other minorities

.


Actually most people prefer competent co-workers who they can count on to get the job done and not cause grief for others

So we need quotas to ensure we don't leave it up to "meritocracy" because objective meritocracy does not exist.

no
statistically quotas distort the competitive nature of the hiring process and can prevent the best person from acquiring the position
excluding excellent candidate in order even up a quota scorecard is bad business

It is always subjective and people's judgement cannot be trusted. Quotas only ensure that everyone is represented but the people who are chosen still are qualified and therefore the meritocracy still applies.

management is trusted by the firms clients to deliver products services
management is trusted by the firms employees to deliver paycheques, benefits as agreed upon as well as providing a safe working environment opportunities for career advancement and personal development
management is trusted by the shareowners with the firms assets
billions of dollars in cash, plant equipment, brands, intellectual property and the companies reputation

yet you claim management judgement can not be trusted to hired the best person for positions and requires quotas imposed by people with zero skin in the game

you must be an exceptional control freak

 

[JohnLarue]

So when they stop mining because either better resources are developed elsewhere or deposits play out you get a toxic workforce with limited job prospects. Going to make sure they have access to firearms as well???

what a ridiculous argument

if the ore body plays out early and reserves are not as expected the uneconomical mine will be shut down independent of who was hired, quota or no quota, the usual privileged white clods or the guys from mining towns.

just like the factory that made the Ford Edsel, typewriters, beta recorders , horse shoes or bowler hats

having a quota of women or visible minorities will not change the economic viability of the mine or ensure products do not become obsoete due to innovation

a toxic workforce with limited job prospects.

move onto a new mining town or acquire marketable skills

Going to make sure they have access to firearms as well???

up north hunting is good way to put food on the table
its even more important if the mine is playing out

but you would prefer they just become dependent on govt

 

[JohnLarue]

I am not going to read all of this but I get the general idea.

no you do not

Simply put that will be the allegation against a firm that employs a less diverse workforce and they wouldn't have ammo to defend themselves.

defend themselves against who
more people do not have have any skin in the game, yet who want to exert control

It is an unfortunate fact that bias exists and we need diversity targets to counter it.

It is an unfortunate fact that quotas exist
they will result in sub-optimal workforces, sub-optimal operations and negatively impact returns to the shareowners

There seems to be a prevalent notion that if the workforce has diversity targets, the minorities that are hired are somehow not qualified. That assumption is discriminatory and incorrect on the face of it. This sort of notion further justifies diversity criteria. Reality is that quotas and representation are not incompatible with meritocracy.

just hope a 115 lb woman fire fighter never needs to carry you out of a burning building

you need to learn the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes

the former is achievable and a worthwhile goal. the latter is non- achievable and an unproductive goal

Are there barriers to equality of opportunities?
knock them down.

equality of outcome ... means quotas
And a reduced probability the best person for the position gets the position

management has an obligation to the companies clients, employees and shareowners to hire the best person for the position
if that person happens to be a black lesbian.... so be it
if that person happens to be a white hetro male .... so be it

excluding excellent candidate in order even up a quota scorecard is bad business

 

[JohnLarue]

Equality of opportunity is good in a perfect world. Equality of outcomes are needed in an imperfect world such as ours, failing which one demographic or few demographic groups will dominate the others. Laws alone don't cut it. Equality of outcomes do precisely what they are supposed to - knock down barriers to opportunity in a very real way. It isn't perfect but it is necessary.

you do not apply logic to your arguments

Equality of opportunity is a perquisite for Equality of outcomes
yet you argue Equality of opportunity is good in a perfect world. however, it is not a perfect world
by definition this is extended to Equality of outcomes is good only in a perfect world. however, it is not a perfect world

Equality of opportunity >>>>> every person interested in the position is able to apply and their application is given due consideration
There is no bias and the successful candidate is selected based on merit

this is achievable and all stakeholders benefit

Equality of outcomes do not knock down barriers to opportunity. equality of opportunity accomplishes this
Equality of outcomes creates new barriers for qualified candidates based on gender, (male) and race (Caucasian) who are not evaluated based on merit

good examples are the engineering and IT fields were the vast majority of graduates are male, hence the candidate pool is dominated by males

if the quota scorecard demands a female must be hired the candidate pool is reduced to 20 to 30% ex quota
statistics dictates a much lower probability of hiring the best candidate

like so many loonie left schemes Equality of outcomes is a good ideal , however it falls apart in the real world

engineering and IT fields were dominated by white males
not so much now as immigration has diversified these fields by race
still a male dominated field due to human nature as males tend to gravitate to technical fields more so than women
you can not fix human nature via quotas

you do not address discrimination by having quotas discriminate against the majority of a candidate pool

focus the energies on Equality of opportunity and permit the best candidate to be selected based on merit

management has an obligation to the companies clients, employees and shareowners to hire the best person for the position
if that person happens to be a black lesbian.... so be it
if that person happens to be a white hetro male .... so be it

excluding excellent candidate in order even up a quota scorecard is bad business

 

[Dutch Oven]

Rocks in the ground are not hiding from people depending on their skin colour or sexual preferences.

 

[JohnLarue]

I am not interested in your "logic" or lack thereof.

of course you will not apply logic or rational thought, you have an ideology to dictate your thinking to you

We have to agree to disagree and I am not going to spend time reading this.

why should I agree to anything that has not had logic / rational thought applied ?
i do not agree with you at all

If equality of opportunity aka paying lip service worked, we wouldn't have diversity criteria.

ensuring every candidate who applies is given due consideration is a most worthwhile endeavor

I firmly believe women & minorities are capable of competing based on their own merit, given equality of opportunity
you apparently feel they are not capable of competing based on their own merit
shame on you for discriminating

i also do not see anything ruined by diversity criteria (on the contrary the opposite is true) except for a few old white guys getting irritated that they have lost social power.

now who is biased?

old white guys getting irritated that they have lost social power.

that is foolish, stereotyping completely lacking any rational critical thinking before it was typed

you have an ideology to dictate your thinking to you

Making an argument that people chosen via diversity criteria are only there because of their race, or gender, or sexual orientation is inherently a bigoted statement, which automatically justifies having diversity criteria because those are the exact attitudes we want to combat. So your argument may sound logical to you, but you are making my argument for me.

[/QUOTE]

actually Making an argument that women and minorities can not acquire a position based on their own merit is inherently a bigoted statement
So your argument may sound logical to you, but you are making my argument for me.
shame on you for discriminating

exact attitudes we want to combat.

the objective of hiring an employee is to add value for the firm, clients and fellow employees,
the objective is not to control behavior's and attitudes

odd how controlling others is inherent in just about every loonie lefty policy

behavior's and attitudes you define as offside for all organizations despite not having any skin in the game

you do not address discrimination by having quotas discriminate against the majority of a candidate pool

focus the energies on Equality of opportunity and permit the best candidate to be selected based on merit

management has an obligation to the companies clients, employees and shareowners to hire the best person for the position
if that person happens to be a black lesbian.... so be it
if that person happens to be a white hetro male .... so be it

excluding excellent candidate in order even up a quota scorecard is bad business

 

[jeff2]

So 9.4% are women and they probably want more. Nothing wrong if that happens?

No problem. Can we bump up the amount of men working for the government at the same time? I believe women have a total of 70% of government jobs.
Great pensions. Never mentioned by the way.

 

[basketcase]

Jonny is so funny. He keeps pretending to be an advocate for the free market but routinely freaks out when the market makes decisions he doesn't like.

 

[Valcazar]

I honestly don't understand why this has put your nose out of joint, or why you think this is insanity. There are women who would take these jobs, because they pay well. The downside: the bullying and harassment by the idiot men who work there.

There is a rational reason for him to be mad, though.

The history of labor shows that the tendency is when women enter a primarily-male field, it becomes less respected and therefore pay goes down. (Because, you know, sexism.)
So from a purely rational money-making point of view, someone could be very opposed to this because they think it means salaries in the industry will go down.

(What usually happens is that the men leave as well and it becomes known as a "woman's job" and then men don't want to do it.)

 

[JohnLarue]

There is a rational reason for him to be mad, though.

The history of labor shows that the tendency is when women enter a primarily-male field, it becomes less respected and therefore pay goes down. (Because, you know, sexism.)

decreased pay in the industry may indeed be the result when women enter a primarily-male field, however you ignored the more fundamental driver of economic equilibrium
rather than attribute the downward wage pressure to one of your nebulous evils of the world - sexism
you should consider when women enter a primarily-male field, the supply of workers increases ( doubles perhaps)
when supply exceeds demand .>>>> price falls

So from a purely rational money-making point of view, someone could be very opposed to this because they think it means salaries in the industry will go down.

yeah they could be opposed to downward pressure on salaries due to over supply of workers

(What usually happens is that the men leave as well and it becomes known as a "woman's job" and then men don't want to do it.)

since you claim this is usually what happens, please provide several examples

 

[Valcazar]

since you claim this is usually what happens, please provide several examples

Programmers is the famous example, of course. (both the original shift to male-dominated and the front-end/back-end split)
But recreation, secretary, designers, housekeepers, biologists. Doctors in Russia is another classic example.

There's a study from about 10-15 years back that looked at professions over time from 1950-2000 and its quite striking.

If the job becomes "even women can do it" then it will be devalued.

 

[toguy5252]

There is a rational reason for him to be mad, though.

The history of labor shows that the tendency is when women enter a primarily-male field, it becomes less respected and therefore pay goes down. (Because, you know, sexism.)
So from a purely rational money-making point of view, someone could be very opposed to this because they think it means salaries in the industry will go down.

(What usually happens is that the men leave as well and it becomes known as a "woman's job" and then men don't want to do it.)

I am really having a hard time believing that premise. Do you have a study?

What job or jobs had experienced that effect.

 

[Valcazar]

I am really having a hard time believing that premise. Do you have a study?

What job or jobs had experienced that effect.

Here's the piece I was thinking of (I don't have access, though.)

Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data

Abstract. Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is expl

academic.oup.com

I'd be curious now about follow up studies.

(As for what job has had that effect, I listed some up above.)

 

[toguy5252]

Here's the piece I was thinking of (I don't have access, though.)

Occupational Feminization and Pay: Assessing Causal Dynamics Using 1950–2000 U.S. Census Data

Abstract. Occupations with a greater share of females pay less than those with a lower share, controlling for education and skill. This association is expl

academic.oup.com

I'd be curious now about follow up studies.

(As for what job has had that effect, I listed some up above.)

Your artcile didnt say that at all. It said that jobs with high femaile partciapation pay less. it did not say it was becasue of frminiozation. Women generally get paid less and accordingly I assume that as women join jobs there are more cadidates and candidates who are generally paud less. You are drawing the wrong conclusion.

 

[JohnLarue]

Programmers is the famous example, of course. (both the original shift to male-dominated and the front-end/back-end split)

programing is still male dominate - Google Search

According to a global software developer survey in 2022, the vast majority of developers are males, accounting for 91.88 percent of all respondents. Female developers amounted to only five percent of all respondents, demonstrating the male-dominating reality of software development jobs.

not a good start

But recreation, secretary, designers, housekeepers,

all save recreation are traditionally female orientated

housekeepers ??
dating back to Victorian England, the lady housekeepers reported up to the butler

biologists.

biology is still male dominate - Google Search

For example, the male-to-female ratio among U.S. college majors in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and many other STEM fields is now about 1-to-1 (2, 5), whereas in physics, engineering, and computer science (PECS), the ratio appears to have plateaued at about 4-to-1 (2, 4, 5).

however males are not abandoning science because its "woman's job"

Doctors in Russia is another classic example.

that was likely a result of Russian men being drunk while operating all the time
Again they are not running away from the field because life saving surgery is considered "woman's job"

There's a study from about 10-15 years back that looked at professions over time from 1950-2000 and its quite striking.

If the job becomes "even women can do it" then it will be devalued.

I suspect your study may have assigned a preconceived erroneous bias to a trend in a constantly evolving system
sounds familiar

odd how The surge of women in the workforce began in 1950

The surge of women in the workforce
The surge of women in the workforce (statcan.gc.ca)

The labour force participation rate of women rises steadily from the 1950s to 1990
In the early 1950s, about one-quarter of women aged 25 to 54 participated in the labour market, that is, they had a job or were looking for one. In contrast, virtually every man in the same age group was participating in the labour market during this period.

From 1953 to 1990, the labour force participation rate for women grew steadily, rising from about 24% in 1953 to 76% in 1990. Meanwhile, the participation rate for men edged down from 96% in 1953 to 93% in 1990.

changed in fundamental demographic drivers such as labour force participation, will have an impact on almost all industries and changed the workforce demographics of most sectors
compensation is driven by supply vs demand

people work at all kinds of shitty jobs, they do not reject job opportunities because its a "woman's job"

 

[Valcazar]

Your artcile didnt say that at all. It said that jobs with high femaile partciapation pay less. it did not say it was becasue of frminiozation. Women generally get paid less and accordingly I assume that as women join jobs there are more cadidates and candidates who are generally paud less. You are drawing the wrong conclusion.

Actually, it says that the devaluation is the explanation that fits the data best. (I remember the piece from back in the day, even if I don't have access to it now.)

If this is something you want to pursue, you can go digging into the literature.
You aren't LaRue, so I expect you will be willing to keep an open mind and read what's actually there.

 

[toguy5252]

Actually, it says that the devaluation is the explanation that fits the data best. (I remember the piece from back in the day, even if I don't have access to it now.)

If this is something you want to pursue, you can go digging into the literature.
You aren't LaRue, so I expect you will be willing to keep an open mind and read what's actually there.

That is high praise.

I did not read the cause and effect to be as you describe although I certainly see how it could. Based on that analyis yes the pay scales were lower in occupations with a higher female partciapation but I do not then conclude that employers value those jobs less becasue of the female participation but rather that pay scales may decline because of the avalability of a labour pool that employers can pay less. More a case of the inherant variance in pay among men and women. At least that is the way i tale the outcome.