Following on from a post in ‘unpopular opinions’. @Halfwayline suggested that men 50+ are being systematically and unfairly replaced by younger women in the workplace. Rather than being an unpopular opinion quite a number of forum members agreed with it. This led to a somewhat thread derailing debate about recruiting and diversity with people suggesting that ‘box ticking’ in the private sector, in favour of women and ethnic minorities, is widespread, to the degree that there is clear discrimination against white people. I was sceptical of this. It’s been a common reaction of people through the years to suggest changes in the workplace must be due to the nefarious schemes of the ultra right on or demanding minorities. Women and people from a minority background couldn’t possibly be worthy of their positions. Someone must have fixed it for them. I was also sceptical because I have a lot of recruitment experience in the public sector and we don’t go in for that sort of nonsense. I find it hard to understand why, if true, people would put up with it. I also find it hard to understand why competitive companies would get rid of good staff for allegedly inferior ones. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. There are other factors at play, of course. Older staff, with high salaries and benefits may be in the gunsights of companies looking to save money. That has always been so. There is a feeling too, in some industries, that young people work harder, have new ideas, are less rigid than older staff. Younger staff are likely to be more diverse, so a well established churn (conducted fairly on performance or not) will lead to a more diverse workplace. If it is true (and there was a case with the MOD recently where this did happen) that white staff are not treated fairly, this would be an horrendous and deplorable state of affairs. It would benefit no one in the long run and devalues all promotions and achievements. It would undermine social relations and trust. However, the obverse is that this is a pernicious mistruth that suits certain grudges and agendas. The truth may be between the two. What’s your experience and views?
In my workplace I don't see that at all, we recruit the best fit for the role and promotion is made with the best person for the job. We have staff retention figures that are some of the highest out there, and as discussed in the other thread, the only recent hiccup was when a, (now removed), HR person made some idiotic decisions about returning to work after the pandemic. As soon as good staff started leaving it was quickly overturned.
Pretty mixed really. In my current industry, pretty much everyone is male and white although age varies by role. In my previous industry (IT) the employees shifted pretty dramatically. I (white, male) joined as a fresh faced 19 year old in a department of 3 - all 3 of them in their late 50s/early 60s (2 white + one Indian), when I left 3 years ago at the age of 32 I was the oldest in the department that was now 6 big (4 white males - with 2 women, one of them black). So definitely a big shift towards younger and more diverse employees. And we were much better off for it as the old guys were so stuck in their ways and found ways to drag every task out as long as possible (I have no idea why - fixed salary so don't get more/less for number of jobs done or time spent etc). I once watched one of them fill out a spreadsheet and he was putting 1 in a cell, then below that would put 2 etc. I said "you know you can just drag from the bottom of the cell and it will autofill those numbers right?" "I know, but I don't mind filling it in manually"....
There's some truth in the fact it's now easier to get to an interview stage as a POC with a loose application of the old "Rooney Rule" in most places. However, getting a foot in the door and getting in those top positions are two different things. I believe for an entry-level/junior role, if there's two candidates who can't be split/very similar in ability, the POC or woman will probably get the job just because he or she also helps with the diversity figures. But if the clear and outstanding candidate is white I don't think it'll matter. When it comes to recruiting at the very top though, boardroom level, it's still heavily dominated by the white male. That will also slowly change. Call it positive discrimination if you like but it was definitely a white man's world for many, many years. Maybe a slight readdressing of the balance is not the worst thing.
Not found any issues. I do identify as a 19 year old trans Inuit lesbian with mental health isues and tourettes though.
Never came across any ‘positive discrimination’ in my company over the 40+ years I had any input into recruitment. Appointments and promotion never based on anything but perceived capability. I say ‘perceived’ because some of the appointments I saw made were based on assessments of ability I found quite extraordinary, often influenced by an undue reliance on ‘psychometric testing’…the applicants who’d learnt how to bluff through them often got the job even though events (often quickly) proved they weren’t up to it.
Every single large organisation has a EDI policy which will include commitments to having representation according to population statistics and to having wage parity across ethnic and gender lines. These targets will also be timed eg. Pay parity by 2025. The aim is laudable but to achieve this, its impossible that there won't be casualties who don't tick a box and so lose out on jobs or advancement as the HR teams and hiring managers have to prioritise the edi objectives. And this is reported on at board level and included in annual reports etc.
Everywhere I have worked has these and nothing happens if they are not met. Nevertheless, there is some progress. That best efforts approach is all the law allows, though there is a tie-break clause that allows a candidate from an already established minority group to be favoured over two equal candidates. But candidates are never exactly equal and I have never seen it not decided on merit.
