cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (07/01/85)
The opinion that AA for women is misguided has been expressed in this newsgroup. I'd like just to mention that there are a number of facets to this discussion which people seem to be missing. First, there is the famous 63cents-on-the-dollar rate of pay for Ms Average versus Mr Average. There is an argument made by anti-AA people that this figure is somehow bogus, and that there are other factors. The problem is, if we are debating social policy, we have to make clear what we want and what we don't want. Too often people broadly state "we want equality", then go no further to define what they are talking about. Do they want every man, woman and android earning precisely $12,385.55 per annum, or do they want equality of opportunity only in civil service jobs? Or somewhere in between? It is clear that this is a debate which needs some definitions -- a structured approach (debating in Pascal, anyone??). So here's my rash attempt at definitions. First off, what do we want ? (i.e., what (at least) are MY goals) I'd like to see a situation where (given an accurate job description) the average wage for holders of that job did not differ on basis of sex, religion, race, etc. In other words, black female plumbers get the same money as white male plumbers. I'd also like completely equal opportunity for any job that you care to mention (modulo qualification). In other words, pick the most qualified person. This also extends to situations where job applications are handed out to families of employees only. (I haven't been burned by nepotism, I just think it sucks as badly as sex-based inequality of opportunity.) Thus, we theoretically have the situation where an eskimo woman might become president of IBM. Of course, there aren't many eskimos who might be qualified, but if there were, then there should be no reason why not. What I don't want is the situation where people are promoted or hired for the sole reason that they are a member of some 'officially downtrodden' group. This requires some degree of research. One topic which requires more light is this 65-cents thing. Is it because women are paid less than men in exactly the same jobs, and are discriminated against in the promotion process? Or is there some other problem? I suspect it is both. For different-pay-for-same-job, something can easily be done (pass laws against it). For the passed-over-in-promotion situation, a solution doesn't come to mind, other than a typical union grievance kind of procedure, where the person who feels he is a victim can complain to some arbitration body, who will do essentially the same as the person who did the promotion did... find the best-qualified of the applicants. Note that the person doing the promotion states his criteria for qualification, which can be (up to a limit) reasonably arbitrary, and could be as simple as "the person most suited to working with me". This wouldn't wash is the guy was promoting assembly line workers, but probably would if a high-level manager was looking for an strategy-planning assistant. This is getting long, so I'll shut up. Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo I was walking down the street one day, when suddenly... my baloney melted !
bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/01/85)
While one might claim that it is an important social gools to ensure that "black female plumbers are paid as much as white male plumbers", it is also a very important social goal that superior plumbers are paid more than inferior plumbers. The same is true for all jobs. If you interfere with the above process, you can easily destroy most of the incentives in society. The problem with AA laws is that they insist the government decide who is a superior plumber, programmer or president of IBM. You can't get around this. If somebody criticizes a hiring decision as sexist, and the employer responds that they think those chose the superior applicant, the government is required to set down standards to decide who is the superior applicant. Thank you, but no damn way I want this to happen. No bureaucrat in Ottawa has the right or competence to tell me what I'm worth. Or anybody else for that matter. ------------------------ On another hiring note - nepotism. While it doesn't seem fair that employers often hire people within families or people they know, you must understand that, particularly in a small company, the choice of an employee can be fundamental to the success of the company. One wrong move and your company can fail. Thus many companies chose to go with somebody they KNOW, even in full realization that there are better people out there that they don't know. Can you blame them? Every company wants to make the best decision, but if they can't do so safely they will stick with what they know. In the long run, the companies who take the risk will do better, but more of them will go bankrupt, too. That's corporate Darwinism, I guess! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (James H. Andrews) (07/03/85)
In article <15520@watmath.UUCP> bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >While one might claim that it is an important social gools [sic] to ensure that >"black female plumbers are paid as much as white male plumbers", ... I *do* claim this -- don't you? >... it is >also a very important social goal that superior plumbers are paid more >than inferior plumbers.... > ... If somebody criticizes a hiring decision as sexist, and >the employer responds that they think those [sic] chose the superior applicant, >the government is required to set down standards to decide who is the >superior applicant. >Thank you, but no damn way I want this to happen.... Employment policies will be independent of race and sex iff we have a totally non-racist, non-sexist society. We most assuredly do not have such a society right now, and it would take several generations for such a society to come about, if it does at all. In the meantime, while the bigots get educated and/or die off, it is important that we try to move towards equality amongst races and sexes. If an imposed solution is the only way, so be it. We owe it to all our people. By the way, I am basically an optimist when it comes to the potential of humans to move away from racial intolerance. Skin tone and hair colour must have been factors of discrimination in, say, 10th or 11th-century Britain, indicating as they would racial origin (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Norman, etc.). Obviously those racial distinctions have all but disappeared in the genetic mix which now characterizes most English-speaking countries. More recently, up until a few decades ago there was great prejudice against Irish North Americans, which has by now dissolved into, at most, fairly mild stereotypes. So racial tolerance can happen, but it happens on the individual level, and cannot really be legislated, much as we would like it to be. But we can legislate against the effects of racial intolerance, such as different wages for different races. So let's do it as much as possible! --Jamie.
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (07/04/85)
> In the meantime, while the bigots get >educated and/or die off, it is important that we try to move towards equality >amongst races and sexes. If an imposed solution is the only way, so be it. >We owe it to all our people. This is a very questionable piece of reasoning. Admittedly, it would be desireable to eliminate descrimination from our society, but I think it can be argued that your solution may have costs (in term of loss of personal freedom, etc.) that outweigh its intended benefit. Before implementing such a solution, we have to decide which is the lesser of two evils. > --Jamie. -bob atkinson watmath!csc
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/05/85)
> By the way, I am basically an optimist when it comes to the potential of > humans to move away from racial intolerance. Skin tone and hair colour must > have been factors of discrimination in, say, 10th or 11th-century Britain, > indicating as they would racial origin (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, > Norman, etc.). Obviously those racial distinctions have all but disappeared > in the genetic mix which now characterizes most English-speaking countries. > More recently, up until a few decades ago there was great prejudice against > Irish North Americans, which has by now dissolved into, at most, fairly mild > stereotypes. > --Jamie. I think you need to look around you a bit more. Perhaps in your area there is a lack of overt racial or sexual discrimination but I feel that if you were to visit a few large cities (not the tourist traps) you might find that there is still a boundary defined by color of skin and another defined by sex/gender and another defined by age.......... skin tone / hair color have been factors in discrimination in the modern world. We don't live in the 10th or 11th century but since that time mankind has found wasy to : Murder people for their religion. Enslave people for the color of their skin Deprive citizens of their rights and property because of their racial background (citizen status not withstanding) Cultivate an entire subculture or people as menials because of sex. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (James H. Andrews) (07/08/85)
In an article a while ago I wrote: >> By the way, I am basically an optimist when it comes to the potential of >> humans to move away from racial intolerance. Skin tone and hair colour must >> have been factors of discrimination in, say, 10th or 11th-century Britain... >> More recently, up until a few decades ago there was great prejudice against >> Irish North Americans, which has by now dissolved... In article <198@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >I think you need to look around you a bit more. > >Perhaps in your area there is a lack of overt racial or sexual discrimination >but I feel that if you were to visit a few large cities (not the tourist traps) >you might find that there is still a boundary defined by color of skin, >another defined by sex/gender and another defined by age.......... >Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie In this article I write: NO no no no NO no no no NO If you read my original posting carefully you will see that I was NOT making a statement about racism and sexism in general in our society; I know all too well that such things still exist, yes, even here in idyllic Vancouver. I was referring to the SPECIFIC prejudices which existed in early Britain, prejudices which now are apparent only in the silly cliches about blond(e)s having more fun, redheads being more temperamental, etc. The point I was making was that these SPECIFIC prejudices have dissolved to the extent that people having these different genes freely intermarry and look on each other as equals, and to the extent that we now refer to them all as just WASPs where before they would have been distinct classes of people. Because we have overcome these prejudices, I have hope that we can overcome the other racial prejudices that we face. (Now sexism is another matter...) --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "'Hero' is the surprising word that men use when they speak of Barbara Ehrenreich"