|
Far easier for females to get jobs in this industry. Take Wrightsair in the outback of SA for example, I recall seeing an article in the paper a few years back about how there were 6 females working for this small operation. Can't blame Trevor Wright using this as a talking/selling point but I wonder how many hundreds of fresh male CPLs had their resumes put in the bin only to have these girls shortlisted for the simple fact they have lady parts.
|
The pay gap in most industries is real by the way, for no reason at all. Hi, could you give an example of 'an industry' in Australia or please refer me to Australian Enterprise Agreement that stipulates a woman getting paid less than a man in the same position? Cheers :ok: |
Smash Bugger , whatever gets you laid bro
|
Hi Smash Bugger.
I didn't actually ask for you to provide me with a link to the 'Gender Pay gap fact sheet', otherwise I would of said 'could you please provide me a link to the Gender Pay Gap Fact sheet'. No, what I did ask is for is a link to an Australian Enterprise agreement that details a male employee being given a different rate of pay than a female for the same job description. Seeing as you are so good at using this Google thing I suggest you also type in the term 'Why the gender pay gap is a myth', there are some excellent counter arguments I'm sure a reasonably intelligent person as yourself can comprehend, cheers :ok: |
I accept your point yet what other methods can be used to redress the balance? In what way are women discriminated against from gaining entry into our industry? Zero In what way is it implied that our industry isn't suitable for women? Zero. Are there programs that specifically target women to encourage them into the industry? Yes. Yet despite all this you support hiring not on merit but on identity. Insanity. |
Smash bugger and oicur12, well done for standing up to the bullies, with well researched, logical and well thought out opinions.
As you may have noticed, those who are protesting most are those who seem to be black and white thinkers, or deliberately misunderstand what is stated. They also engage in some of the classic 'errors of reason' i.e. the black and white thinking, straw man argument or begging the question. To those who use these arguments, and there are a few on this thread, have a read of this The Most Common Logical Fallacies to realise why your arguments are not nearly as effective as you think they are. Jetstar stating that they want more women at interviews does not necessarily mean they will choose women applicants over men, it may mean that they will make an effort to go into schools or advertise the career options in areas have not done so in the past, in a manner in which appeals to women rather than men. In my years of professional aviation I have noticed that those who bitch the most at women being in their domain are those who bitch about everything being unfair on them (whilst not recognising that their failings are theirs alone, not the responsibility of others). It is valid to say that a woman should not get a job just because of her gender, but it is equally valid that girls have been discouraged from higher paying aviation jobs by society for many years and something needs to be done to even up the balance. It is a worry that children still seem surprised when they meet a female pilot - this means the conditioning starts early. |
Weasel Words.
Howard mastered the government being "committed" to doing something. It doesn't mean it will be doing it, and there is no accountability if it doesn't. This approach has been adopted by all and sundry since. You can't be accused of breaking a promise made with a commitment. Jetstar is no different. The company is aiming for something which on the surface sounds good. It doesn't have to reach the 50% goal, and if it doesn't, it still looks good for trying. |
Exec to recruiting manager:
"Please explain why only 20% of your short list is female." Response: "Oh, is it? I'm sorry, I wasn't paying any attention to gender. That would be illegal." Remember the Nuremberg defence? Following orders is no excuse to break the law. |
Funnily enough what if you changed this around to 50% of our recruits shall be men?
The feminists would be screaming :) |
As a male I have absolutely no problem with this 'policy'. There is no doubt whatsoever that women are up against it in most walks of life in this 'developed' western society and if you have any doubt about that then you're either too young and idealistic or too myopic to be convinced of any other truth than that which you think is right. Most of the protesting viewpoints posted here purporting to be voices of reason merely show what a closed mindset women are up against with the slightest opportunity given to redress any imbalance - and it is surely an unjustified imbalance - in our industry is guffawed down with brouhaha and calls of sexism. Amazing. Women are a minority in aviation, no question. We should discard more qualified and experienced men for lesser female candidates to help this. A 50/50 split is what we should be aiming for! Why? Because its equitable right? But what about left handed people? A bit over 10% of the population is left handed. What are we doing to ensure they are adequately represented?! How many Hindu lesbian black guitar playing over 6 foot vegans are being represented in the airline industry?! Does anyone not think of them!? This is the problem with this ridiculous attitude. The 'rules' needed to redress the absurd requirement for equity in employment are endless. The alternative is simple. There is only 1 rule. The best person for the job. |
As you may have noticed, those who are protesting most are those who seem to be black and white thinkers, or deliberately misunderstand what is stated. They also engage in some of the classic 'errors of reason' i.e. the black and white thinking, straw man argument or begging the question. To those who use these arguments, and there are a few on this thread, have a read of this The Most Common Logical Fallacies to realise why your arguments are not nearly as effective as you think they are. I'm dying for you to point out these 'logical fallacies' with actual examples. Jetstar stating that they want more women at interviews does not necessarily mean they will choose women applicants over men, it may mean that they will make an effort to go into schools or advertise the career options in areas have not done so in the past, in a manner in which appeals to women rather than men. Do you have any evidence for this? In my years of professional aviation I have noticed that those who bitch the most at women being in their domain are those who bitch about everything being unfair on them (whilst not recognising that their failings are theirs alone, not the responsibility of others). Cool story. Totally irrelevant to the thread but 10/10, would read again. I could care less how many women there are in aviation. My mother and my wife are both pilots. Its great. Both of them howeve believe in a meritocracy. Solving perceived discrimination with more discrimination is moronic and serves only to cast a shadow over those women who have achieved legitimately in the field with a suspicion that they simply got their job because of their gender. That is doing a true disservice to women. It is valid to say that a woman should not get a job just because of her gender (Ya think!), but it is equally valid that girls have been discouraged from higher paying aviation jobs by society for many years and something needs to be done to even up the balance. It is a worry that children still seem surprised when they meet a female pilot - this means the conditioning starts early. Just as children are surprised when they meet a male nurse. Damn evil society.
Originally Posted by Smash
So how about you just take your Uncle Maths and your perceived victimisation and instead set about being a very good pilot and one with good interpersonal skills to boot which will make any quota or policy irrelevant anyway - you'll surely make it through any selection process on those grounds alone.
So, relax everyone, Smash has got it figured out. :ugh: |
If groups stopped worrying "how many x are employed by industry y" and simply hired the best person for the job, the world would be a better place. Trying to engineer "equality" into an industry that holds no appeal (yet lacks any barriers for entry/progession/success) for a subset of the population is a waste of resources.
In my years of professional aviation I have noticed that those who bitch the most at women being in their domain are those who bitch about everything being unfair on them (whilst not recognising that their failings are theirs alone, not the responsibility of others). |
it may mean that they will make an effort to go into schools or advertise the career options in areas have not done so in the past, in a manner in which appeals to women rather than men. If you want more women in aviation you have to increase the participation rate of women which as Keg pointed out earlier may never happen for a myriad of reasons. |
Reading all this baloney, I think it's made my point. A divisive, poorly executed, poorly communicated nonsense policy that will be lost like tears in rain with the next trendy thought bubble.
|
Irony: accusing people of engaging in logical fallacies such as straw man arguments and then actually putting forward your own straw man.
Brilliant. |
In South Africa, the discrimated against demographic were up arms about the lack of representation in South African airways.
They were hired in the same numbers as their 'white counterparts, (50/50), but where not getting through the exams or training. They were up in arms in the media that they were being discrimated against, and the standard was too high and should be lowered. This was despite the fact most of their 'other' colleagues generally passed. The best person should be the best person for the job regardless of any other factor. After all, you don't want a 'quota' warming the window seat on a dark stormy night when things go bad, and your family is onboard.... In fact, it doesn't even have to be dark and stormy as demonstrated by Air Asia, asiana and numerous others.... |
From the Economist May 2014.
SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS (SAA) has been taken to task by Solidarity, a trade union, over its discriminatory hiring practices for pilots. The union is angry with the state-owned carrier's decision not to admit Daniël Hoffman to its cadet pilot programme for the second year in a row. Mr Hoffman, whose theory and psychometric tests were described as exceptional by Solidarity, is a white male. That puts him at a handicap against other applicants because of the airline's self-professed bias towards hiring black, coloured (mixed race), Indian or white female pilots. In 2012, Solidarity submitted two near-identical applications for SAA's cadet pilot programme. There was just one difference: one applicant was white, the other was black. The white candidate received a swift rejection letter; the black one was accepted onto the programme. SAA defended its policy at the time by noting that 85% of its serving pilots were white. A spokesperson for the airline told Beeld, an Afrikaans-language daily newspaper, that whites will only be hired once efforts to find applicants of other races are exhausted. The subsequent media furore forced SAA to ditch its policy, but Solidarity suspects it is still being implemented behind the scenes. Most commercial pilots in Africa are not indigenous to the continent. This has nothing to do with whites being better at flying and everything to do with the better opportunities they have historically enjoyed. They usually come from richer backgrounds and have better access to education, which gives them a head-start. SAA is therefore trying to level the socio-economic playing field by shifting things back in favour of disadvantaged blacks. Affirmative action is a central pillar of government policy in South Africa. The government has launched various Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) programmes in an attempt to reverse the injustices of history. Most white South Africans concede that some form of post-apartheid redress is inevitable. As long as it is pursued fairly, such re-balancing should benefit society. But a blanket ban on training white male pilots seems crass. Putting aside the prestige and compensation that pilots enjoy, their job is one of the most demanding and socially responsible functions in any economy. Millions of South Africans entrust their lives to commercial pilots each year. Elevating arbitrary criteria such as skin colour above objective, performance-based measures should be roundly condemned. There are better solutions. Ethiopian Aviation Academy, a subsidiary of Ethiopian Airlines, another large African carrier, is training indigenous pilots in record numbers. The academy already processes 1,000 trainees per year, and it plans to quadruple this figure over the next decade. Applicants are drawn not just from Ethiopia, but from across East Africa and beyond. These graduates should, over time, turn the tide from majority-white to majority-black flight crews on the continent. SAA’s cadet programme, meanwhile, selected just 40 candidates last year (none of them white males). Pilots may not be the only victims of SAA's policies. When the airline had to select a new boss last summer—its fifth in as many years—Nico Bezuidenhout, an experienced white airline executive, was among the front-runners. He lost out to Monwabisi Kalawe, a black executive with no prior experience in the industry. One year on, Mr Kalawe is reportedly being investigated over four allegations of impropriety; the airline insists he has done nothing untoward. Most South Africans simply want their flag carrier to be run by a competent, experienced manager. Likewise, most passengers simply want a competent, experienced pilot to land them safely on the ground. Skin colour should be a non-issue |
It's discrimination alright. Nobody is denying it. Only some types of discrimination are unlawful. Discrimination in favour of employing women in some industries doesn't come under that category - a sign of the times we live in I suppose.
|
You'd think nobody would deny it. Then you read this thread. :ugh:
|
I have discovered a horrifyingly unacceptable statistic - male nurses make up only 8% of the nursing population. This outlandish statistic MUST be rectified to "redress the balance" - I propose:
- No HECS debt for male nurses - Individual mentors provided to male nurses as they complete their studies This female dominated industry must be forced to artificially increase the percentage of males within its ranks to be "equal". Seriously, I'm done with this hogwash... Guess we will have to agree to disagree... |
Interesting to see the South Australian Police Association today expressing serious concerns about a similarly ridiculous proposal.
  SA News Police officers have rejected a new 50-50 gender recruitment quota April 21, 2016 12:43am STEVE RICEPOLICE REPORTERThe Advertiser  POLICE officers have rejected “rigid” gender recruitment quotas amid claims they will compromise public safety by lowering standards. The Police Association has criticised the imposition of a 50-50 recruitment policy it says dictates gender is more important than ability when selecting new officers. Opposition to the quota — introduced on January 1 this year — comes as new figures reveal 22 per cent fewer men would be recruited as police officers because of their gender. Police have denied excluding men or lowering standards, saying the 50-50 recruitment policy is a “win-win situation” for the community and people wishing to become officers. It says recruiting equal numbers of men and women is part of a plan to promote a modern, professional workforce. But Police Association president Mark Carroll told The Advertiser: “The goal is to be an employer of choice.” “The challenge for all professional occupations is to attract quality applicants — men and women — who possess the requisite aptitude, skills, values and education standards,” he said. “Any applicant who reaches the necessary high standards should not be denied employment based on rigid gender quotas. “Likewise, an overnight change to long-established recruitment practices that does not take into account the reasons many women leave the police force misses the point entirely. “A rigid policy to recruit equal numbers of men and women doesn’t address this problem.” Police Commissioner Grant Stevens announced in December last year a 50-50 recruitment policy to address gender imbalance within the force. Mr Stevens said the changes would be introduced to ensure police better represented the community it served. Freedom of Information figures obtained by The Advertiser reveal that, between 2012 and 2015, 75 per cent of police force applicants were men. The figures also show that, during the same period, there were 443 men — or 72 per cent — among the 615 new officers recruited. Based on those figures under the 50-50 gender recruitment policy, 22 per cent fewer men would be employed in favour of women. Mr Carroll said the union was concerned about the ability of the police force to retain both men and women. He said female officers left the force, on average, after seven to eight years of service. “We argue that SAPOL needs to recognise that men and women — at certain points in their careers — require flexible working arrangements to balance family commitments,” he said. “In a 24/7, 365-day-a-year occupation, finding that balance is a unique challenge, but it is not insurmountable. “The police profession already offers highly competitive employment conditions as well as diverse and unique fields of endeavour within the job. “This is an important feature of the job and it enables it to attract the right type of recruit regardless of gender.” Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire, who sought the FoI figures, said policies such as gender quotas would not necessarily deliver the best outcome for an organisation. Mr Brokenshire said there was a risk of missing out on the best talent with a 50-50 recruitment policy, which left men at a disadvantage in their opportunities to become a police officer. “If the best talent is more women than men then fine but it should be on talent and ability and not on a quota,” he said. “Policing is one of the most complex occupations in society and therefore you need to ensure you have the best possible skill mix.” Mr Brokenshire said he had spoken with men who were concerned about the increased difficulty of becoming police officers. “There is a risk that men may decide their chances are going to be even slimmer now with a 50-50 gender policy and go and look elsewhere for a career,” he said. “If the best talent pool is 90 per cent women and 10 per cent men in a given year then you take 90 per cent women but you look at the talent pool not at a policy of 50-50 at all costs.” A police spokesman said its recruitment standards “are and will remain high” and that gender parity was not about excluding men or lowering standards. “Growing a fair, equitable workplace has the benefit of attracting the right sort of person — men and women — into our job,” he said. “It is a win-win situation for the community as well as for every person who desires to become a police officer.” The spokesman said police needed to reflect the community it served, having traditionally been an occupation for men. “We are promoting a modern, professional workforce in a way that aims to attract more applications from women right now who might not have considered a policing career in the past,” he said. |
But hold on, OIC in his infinite 'well researched' opinion said that this practice is illegal!
|
She is on record saying she wants %50 . Great . Let's get on with it and see what happens .
|
Now seriously...
Seriously, Australia needs to have a really good hard look at itself in a room full of mirrors! :ugh:
It has become a very sad, stagnating left wind socialist "nanny-state" where you legislate for the stupid and idiotic fools. You get a medal for just being there, NOT for winning or 2nd/3rd place! What ****e is that? :hmm::ugh: Take a good look around the world at the countries that followed this socialist line and look at the mess they're in now! If you want to be a pilot, do it and if you're good enough and pass the myriad of tests, you make it. End of story! Male OR female. The reason alot of people are not joining the industry now has been covered in many a thread here on PP. |
|
I'm equal parts English, Irish, Scottish and Dutch with parts of that making up about 1/4 Jewish (paternal so doesn't count I hear)
Surely that combination should represent about 1 in every 10 successful candidates!? |
That's nothing, I spent the first twelve years of my life in Launceston yet I don't see any special treatment on the horizon for me.
|
I have,over the years been very successful with ticking the "South Pacific Islander" box.Im obviously the albino kind,as Pakeha as can be,but no one has ever questioned it.
On the question of the 50/50,just ask UAL how that type of hiring worked out for them,it not only didn't work,but there is lingering resentment to this day!!!! |
Love the nonsense flying around on this thread.
Das Uber, you will find with a little research yourself that the government: police and defense for example, can use quotas when selecting candidates for positions. Oic made the point that the private sector cannot. You should be a little more careful with how you cherry pick quotes. And Keg thinks the industry has done nothing to foster the massive workforce imbalance in the airline industry. How did such an imbalance come about then? Examining what can be done to encourage more women to join the industry should not imply the assignment of blame, no one is suggesting you are any individual is at fault for the state of affairs. The airline game needs to figure out how to make the industry more accessible to women and as someone has already suggested, that requires a grass roots approach. And a generational change. A quota system has merit in some situations but not this one. Plus, a little research will quickly reveal that it's not legal. |
Just tick the identify with being indigenous box. You don't need to prove it, you just have to identify with being.
Suddenly all sorts of 'help' will appear from government to HR :) |
50% L, 50% G 50% B 50% T 50% I 50%. That all adds up OK.
|
How about all people take responsibility for their own wants, desires and pursue their dreams despite what they think other people think?
Do we really need to all be treated like a special little snowflake now a days? There are very very few people who have gone through GA that have had an easy run regardless of their age, race, sex or sexual orientation, so why should anything but pure skill, determination and ability, including the ability to work as an effective member of the team be a determining factor whether you get a job? While we're at it how about anyone who had their family fund their training be excluded? Or maybe anyone who used a government loan scheme to get their licence? Maybe anyone who's right handed should be excluded from a position? Wait, I think redheads are unfairly being excluded from pilot jobs. There's plenty of people blaming others as to why they're being kept down, but at the end of the day you're only responsible for keeping you down, you! On another note, I would really like to see some more albino, buddhist, redheads from both an australian aboriginal and alaskan malamute background that feel that they are gender neutral be promoted to higher levels of aviation. |
The problem with quotas in any job whether it be a male dominated field such as pilots or a female dominated field such as nursing, if you encourage applicants on the simple fact that they need to fill a quota you're not necessarily getting applications from an equal pool of application.
It is a simple fact that different genders gravitate toward different industries. Even when there are concerted efforts from the state or private industry to change this fact, the genders in the long run tend to go back to where they have always been. Women are almost never carpenters. Men are almost never nurses. There is no natural 50/50 split to almost any industry today. That being the case, if the entire pool of potential applications isn't a 50/50 split in the first place how are you going to get the best person for the job if you aim for a 50/50 split in the workforce but 90% of the applicants are men and 10% are female for example. That would mean you would need to be an exceptional male candidate and a mediocre female candidate to be successful in a male dominated industry. Conversely you would need to be an exceptional female candidate and a mediocre male candidate in a female dominated industry. Common sense would dictate that is a crazy notion to entertain however in today's world of PC craziness I'm sure there is a catchall word to shut down any discussion to the contrary. Modern society doesn't tend to deal with simple facts these days moreso they deal with the feelings based ideologies of the left wing. |
Don't verbal me Orange future. I'm not ignorant to the fact that 40 Yeats ago the industry employment bodies were allowed to discriminate. So I'm that respect your statement....
And Keg thinks the industry has done nothing to foster the massive workforce imbalance in the airline industry. The airline game needs to figure out how to make the industry more accessible to women....... At least you agree quotas aren't the right fix. Still, until you diagnose the problem correctly it's simply noise. |
Das Uber, you will find with a little research yourself that the government: police and defense for example, can use quotas when selecting candidates for positions. Oic made the point that the private sector cannot. You should be a little more careful with how you cherry pick quotes. You couldn't make this garbage up. The rest of your post, as keg puts it, is noise. |
"The airline game needs to figure out how to make the industry more accessible to women......."
Orange future, give me one example of how the current industry is not accessible to women. With the exception of the odd rouge GA operator, I don't see the slightest impediment to women in the industry, and no woman I've worked with has had the slightest bit of trouble achieving their career goals, or being completely accepted by their male peers (with the exception of a handful of near-retirement dinosaurs, but you'll always get that). You're discussing solutions to a problem which doesn't exist, unless your definition of the "problem" is "we have more male pilots than female pilots". |
Either way,after reading articles and posts on the subject,I now firmly believe Americas version of "affirmative-action" has finally extended its ugly tentacles downunder,they just want to call it something else.The furor over this type of "business"has still not subsided in here parts,and there are many instances of its futility.
|
I don't think the problem is with quotas that mean male candidates miss out on flying jobs.
I think a real issue coming up is an acknowledgement that currently too many women write off becoming pilots, and we are missing out on almost 50% of the population and almost 50% of the available talent pool in recruitment. Which I think could come back to bite airlines in the future. And it's not just female pilots being positively portrayed in the media etc, I've spoken with many people who still think aviation is a profession that can only be performed by physically strong, emotionless, adrenaline-seeking Type A personalities (qualities seen as more "macho" than feminine) and any woman who pursues aviation is sort of a "tomboy". Of course in reality that's definitely not the case but those perceptions do exist in the wider community. |
Still, until you diagnose the problem correctly it's simply noise. However there obviously is a problem. Can we all agree that females were not born disinterested in flying (A rhetorical question obviously)? Somewhere along the way they have been socialized into turning away from the profession. As I mentioned before, this argument is not to assign blame. Its not our fault, its not Jetstar's fault. I have not suggested that women are not given a fair chance. But clearly there is a problem as so few women see airline flying as a viable profession as evidenced by their participation rate. But it is a problem that impacts JQ (and all airlines) and you should not fault them for laying the groundwork for figuring out how to adjust course in this regard. Until then, if the VAST majority of cockpit seats are occupied by men only, then statistically you are not always employing the best person for the job, something which appears to concern many of you. |
Interesting research paper (written by a female):
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Airline_Pilots finds that female pilots have higher accident rates and that "affirmative action programs should not be designed to lower the flying standards for females in order to increase the number of female airline pilots." :ugh: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.