You can't achieve diversity quotas without discrimination!

look at what 'diversity quotas' did to Labour in UK and Democrats in US. Don't the 'ruling elite' hate the fact that Trump has lowest ever unemployment with African Americans. The last thing regressives want is for people to be chosen on ability to do job.

AGREE pleased to see your opinion
The whole idea, including in my party, over looks always get the best person for the job

That's why we don't have diversity quotas!

This kind of sounds trite, but technically, it is true. Many companies try to achieve diversity targets, but how else can you do this, without some form of racial/ethnic/sexual discrimination? This is something people would rather not confront.

Herein lies the problem, which reveals which this is REALLY about. We are told the discrimination is bad, yet, it is not only acceptable in some situations, but DEMANDED in some scenarios.
I've worked for companies which actively try to achieve gender quota targets. Many do, but no one challenges them as practising the evil of gender discrimination.

Jordan Peterson makes the point that all systems of value create hierarchies and create inequality. It follows from this view that systems based on the value of diversity will have their own discrimination.

Discrimination can also be natural, not always by greedy humans.
It's a bit like Climate change that is ongoing but humans do their darnest to make sure the damage is greater than it needs to be !

Westpac is one of the most woke organisations in this country. They 'prided' themselves on supporting same sex 'marriage', gender diversity, feminist issues, not lending to coal etc etc etc. Meanwhile they had been assisting the laundering of money for peadophile rings while congratulating themselves on their wokeness. Very similar to democrats, Greens and Hollywood.

Runner- I did some research recently on Hollywood and its creation including the big four companies- Paramount, Columbia, Warner Bros, RKO- and their founders. Fascinating.

Certainly doesn't seem to be " 'propaganda' of the people, by the people, for the people". Some would call it "Entry-ism".

We perhaps need to return to the idea that the majority of the ideas that we consume should be our own- for our own survival. Only we care about our own interest. "Whiplash"- this is the basis of democracy- it makes us realise too that monarchs being dependent on their subjects- and compared to an age of globalisation- were fairly democratic in a sense.

You can't achieve diversity quotas without discrimination!

Thread has been used to promote the usual bigotry and other things some hold views about
But the question is clear, in fact show me one forced position filling event that saw the best person get the job
Right now the Rugby federation has a woman dumped in to the job, that is not even aware of the game she over looks
Best person always

Assembly Line Human,
> Many companies try to achieve diversity targets, but how else can you
> do this, without some form of racial/ethnic/sexual discrimination?
By looking at what's preventing those targets being met, and taking steps to fix those problems.

Targets are not quotas and shouldn't be treated as such; there's no need to need to resort to discrimination to meet them.

I would like to know how this situation began in the first place.
I have been preaching for years of the fact that men and women, for that matter other races and creeds all differ from each other in one way or another.
We are humans not robots.
Simply saying a company must hire half women and half men, is ludicrous to say the least.
What's next an even mix of Christians, Muslims and the rest of the religions.
I have experienced exactly what this topic is about.
I set up a company/business in Malaysia, and was told that I had to focus on hiring the Malays.
I had three sectors, one was stripping the vehicle and reassembling it upon completion.
The next stage was the fabricating/welding.
The next stage was the final paint and then refit.
What I found was that the Chinese were very good at welding/fabricating.
The Indians were very good at painting/finishing.
Unfortunately the Malays were, at best mediocre and really did not want to be there, they took turns in sleeping in the prayer room, which they MUST be allowed to pray as they are instructed to do five times a day.
So you can imagine my reaction when I was told to up the Malay numbers.
As luck would have it, not long after, I sold up and came back home after two and a half years of a successful and interesting business and an exciting part of my life's journey.
So any interference from govts or anyone, for that matter, to dictate to businesses is not welcome and should be stopped.
For those who are so invested in some moronic union or govt to force businesses to heel, should remember that there are already a million laws and directives interfering with businesses.
Discrimination?
I say; bring it on

ALTRAV- I enjoyed your perspective and always enjoy your stories. I remember you saying that you had an engineering background from memory. Mostly I agreed with where you are coming from and relate to your apparent frustration. Though I often have a subtle view. Not that my validation is a requirement.

Just as some companies need to "be allowed to fail" so do some cultures need to "be allowed to fail". From some perspectives culture is similar to a company with perhaps broader goals.

Belly said- "Thread has been used to promote the usual bigotry".

Not that I'm necessarily concerned with being labelled a bigot- but bigoted is used as a pejorative- but I'm not sure where in the thread anyone has been bigoted. Maybe Belly has detected some subtle form of "DOG WHISTLING"- the left say THE RIGHT IS PARANOID- I'd say everyone in politics is paranoid- I guess the left consider themselves an "absolute good"- so pejoratives just slide straight off- "teflon communists".

Not that Belly always sides with the left- he does make some interesting comments about rugby management

Those that are advantaged by equality legislation are given a reason
to slack off and have their incentives removed.
So as Altrav showed the Malays with their advantage took advantage.

Diversity of ideology is about the only diversity the abc does not champion. They promote diversity of sexual perversion, colour, culture sex as long as its part of Marxist group think.

ALTRAV, Baz-

Hopefully I am able to make a complex topic simple here...

Most business people would say that Malaysia's lazy unproductive Malay's are "bad" compared with the productively "good" Chinese and Indian's. Business people prefer relatively productive people as they maximise productivity and profit.

My understanding is that Malay's are the original inhabitants of Malaysia and the Chinese and Indian's are the imports.

The Malay's perhaps see their cultures heritage "Their Land" being taken from them by the Chinese and the Indian's. Their laziness on the job is a form of tax or rent against "the imports" use of their land. Also perhaps they don't care for the lifestyle of a so called "advanced system".

The Chinese, the Indian's, and the Business people have invested in Malaysia to make a return.

The Government has allowed Chinese, Indian's, Business People into Malaysia for purposes of their own to develop their own power and wealth.

The Government, Chinese, Indians, Business people may argue that without their productivity the Malays would decay and die.

The thing is productivity can always be higher- if people are chained to the wheel then there is no limit. So what is the balance? (Roman Shock Troops) Democracy is a far from perfect solution- and perhaps "Open Borders Democracy" is even worse because it nullifies the power of the people for vested interest.

If a group has a higher vested interest in a project do they have more rights? Does it depend on the relative size of the group? Does it depend on the relative expertise of the group?

Democracy says that the above arguments can be used to convince the population that certain laws are valid, but it is the mandate (loosely the vote) that decides the law.

Few things are absolutely good or bad, especially from all points of view. But still decisiveness is often critical. Libertarian's sometimes appeal to the idea that business people should be able to do what they want and the population can vote with their wallets. What if those wallets are outside of the country- does that mean that it's ok to be influenced by foreign powers.

______

I try to understand the situation in Malaysia because it is here in Australia too.

The SAS can kill a hundred men but does that mean the 10 have greater rights than the 100. Should the productive have greater rights to land (the English Kings of the 1500's seemed to think so when they imported tradespeople and Landed Gentry).

Most Governments take a bet each way on the Open Borders policy- some would call closed borders racist- so maybe they are partially racist. The US says that a government should be "of the people" but how does this work when the makeup of the people changes- different groups have different vested interests. Should we be aiming for stability or some other value.

I believe there is such a thing as cultural ownership of the land. Cultures are autonomous units with their own governing structures, their own land, their own values- their own borders. There are those who would say I am evil because of these beliefs- to me it's a difference of philosophy.

Overall I dislike lazy people but as long as it doesn't interfere with me I'm happy to accept that they can do what they like. Just don't come begging me for money.

I suppose we could just wait a little till discrimination becomes unfashionable & then carry on as usual !

I don't get this discrimination thing.
If I don't like something or someone, I don't like them, end of.
I am perplexed at people who ask why.
Why do I have to have a reason, and who are you to demand that reason of me?
Apparently if I am not forthcoming with a reason,I am discriminating, and therefore a bad person.
If I do give a reason, I am still discriminating, even if that reason is justified.
So who's standards do we live by?
I say, your own!
We are all different, in different ways, we cannot/must not be forced into a mindset which appeases someone else, if it is going to leave you compromised.
Diversity quotas are a selfish, fools folly.
It serves no practical or positive purpose, neither physically, or financially.
Just because some morons dream up an idea, and some other morons think it is a good idea, does not mean it IS a good idea, and therefore should not be adopted.
We speak of democracy, well I can tell you democracy is just as flawed as any other form of public self management.
At any one time when a vote is counted, more often than not, we end up with a very close differential in the votes, (eg; a majority of 1 or 2%.
If we called it a 52% majority, in my books that's as good as half the population.
So one half get their wishes and what happens to the other half?
No, diversity quotas are a fallacy, a mistake in any language.
As other commentors here know, I am not a fan of women in top jobs, in fact I'm not a fan of these new age feminazis who keep pushing their bull, that women are equal to men.
That is a genetic impossibility and still they preach, knowing full well, it's not true!

Peferential voting is good thing as you don't end up with a politician
that the majority did not want.
Think how that would have helped the British parliament in its past
electiopns. All that mess of the last few years would not have happened.

ALTRAV- Thanks for your comments. I agree with your comments about the flaws in Democracy and the 52%. This seems more like divide and conquer by the government. I'd prefer to see a more local system in which there was 80% agreement- that would mean that there would be less laws- and smaller government. During the wars there was more community participation in community services- civic responsibility- people felt a greater ownership and cohesion in the community- less red tape- this compensated for a lack of government services. Ironically I am concerned with the apparent lack of laws for privacy and technology. Sadly government is often reactive rather than pro-active- this makes it difficult- for example for businesses- to predict changing realities.

Bazz- Good point on preferential voting- at least our system is better than the British. I know there are a concerning number in the Australian major parties that favour first past the post

My understanding is that recently the major parties have changed the rules on the "four percent of votes and electoral funding" to disadvantage smaller parties from competing as effectively. Now as of 2018 parties need to produce receipts to get the money- though for claims less than $10k it remains the same. This creates a relatively greater management overhead for these smaller parties that already struggle to get volunteers. The corporate major parties operations will presumably be unaffected.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/public_funding/index.htm

"After each federal electionor by-election, the Australia Electoral Commission (AEC) distributes money to eligible political parties, candidates and Senate groups to reimburse them for electoral expenditure. Payment of election funding is included in Division 3 of Part XX of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918(the Electoral Act). The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018 made changes to election funding which came into effect on 1 January 2019. A notable change is that claims for election funding above $10,000now require demonstrated electoral expenditure."

@Aiden

>Targets are not quotas and shouldn't be treated as such; there's no need to need to resort to discrimination to meet them.

Targets and quotas are the same. In both situations, there is a policy of ensuring that the composition of people matches a predefined ratio in terms of gender, ethnicity.

Unless by sheer coincidence selection based on performance happens to also achieve the target, one must, must, place someones identity/race/gender above their qualifications in order to achieve the desired result.

That is racial and/or sexual discrimination. To select FOR someone on the basis of race / gender, must mean selecting AGAINST someone on the basis of race / gender.

There is no question that discrimination on the basis of race and gender happens constantly. I know that the company I work for actively does this, and this was done by discriminating AGAINST candiates. The question is, why are people silent on this?

ALH, unfortunately people are not silent on this.
I, for one, wish they were.
As a business owner, hiring and firing, I did not subscribe to this foolish notion of "equality".
It is my responsibility to hire the BEST people for the job, no excuses.
Any reasons given to justify hiring people just to satisfy some sick and irrational notion that there are benefits in hiring a "broader" range of gender/race and so on, is seriously wrong and MUST NOT be entertained.
Imagine for a moment if only some of the women, (ie those with children) left the workforce, they could be replaced by unemployed fathers, and in one fell swoop we would have cleared up our unemployment problem.
Women have "stepped into the breach" when there was a shortage of men.
For example, women flew the new spitfires to their new flight-lines during the war, because the men were busy fighting.
My position is clear and I am entitled to it, and no one is allowed to criticise me for it, because I am entitled to it, it is mine.
Others may feel inclined to feel otherwise.
The natural order is the judge, not some selfish, entitled, arrogant maggot, who will not accept who or what she is.
They are like spoilt brats who were misguided from an early age to be their own person and do whatever they wanted.
That's the wrong message, and has put women in awkward and sometimes emotionally painful positions because their choices proved to be the wrong ones.
I know of several cases and anecdotes of many more.
One such case I know personally, is a young diminutive lass decided she wanted to be a mechanic, and after having graduated she was for a while, but was soon recruited to a service management position which she is finding even more stressful, and not coping well at all.
Now you would think she could handle an office job in charge of several people, but sadly she is not.
This is not an isolated case.
All thanks to selfish, mentally deficient feminazis, neuters and snags.

That is racial and/or sexual discrimination. To select FOR someone on the basis of race / gender, must mean selecting AGAINST someone on the basis of race / gender.

Assembly Line Human,
So well put ! This applies to literally everything ! I hope your assessment gets the attention it warrants !

Assembly Line Human,
>Targets and quotas are the same. In both situations, there is a policy of ensuring that
>the composition of people matches a predefined ratio in terms of gender, ethnicity.
WRONG!
What you have described are quotas, not targets.

Targets are not an end in themselves, but a way of checking that affirmative action is working.
Affirmative action is investigating the obstacles that prevent people from historically disadvantaged groups getting hired and/or promoted, and changing procedures in order to remove those obstacles.
And we must be clear about this: quotas are NOT affirmative action (even though many people regard them as synonymous, particularly in America). Any business that resorts to quotas is failing at affirmative action.

As for why people are silent on this, you're far better placed to answer the question than I am. Why have you failed to complain about it to anyone who can do something about it?

Aiden said-

"WRONG!
What you have described are quotas, not targets.

Targets are not an end in themselves, but a way of checking that affirmative action is working."

Answer- I am not sure that I understand your post here Aiden.

I'll leave it to others to assert whether or not what you say is reasonable.

We are all responsible for our own judgement.

Targets fill quotas & quotas are there to meet targets, end of argument.

Individual- Thanks for the voice of reason

@Aidan
>Targets are not an end in themselves, but a way of checking that affirmative action is working

Affirmative action is based on the presumption that the expected outcome was not acheived due to discrimination. They may be valid, if an objective and empirically proven case could be made, that X% of identity Y would be in this position if there were no discrimination. This simply is NOT what happens.

>Affirmative action is investigating the obstacles that prevent people from historically disadvantaged groups getting hired and/or promoted, and changing procedures in order to remove those obstacles.

This is not what the quotas are. This is not what ACTUALLY happens. Companies pursue targets, because of the ideological belief that "diversity is a strength". They say this. Explicitly

>And we must be clear about this: quotas are NOT affirmative action (even though many people regard them as synonymous, particularly in America). Any business that resorts to quotas is failing at affirmative action..

But they must resort to quotas, because this is the only way they can prove they aren't sexist/racist. Lack of racial and sexual discrimination is simply not enough, because there is a chance that without any racism or sexism, the composition won't be satisfactory (ie, you may still end up with more mala managers).

Tell me, what percentage of women would be expected in middle and upper management for regulatory positions of manufacturers of FMCG's, if there were no discrimination?

Or better yet, what proportion of posts here in this forum, would be made by women, if there were no discrimiation or structural disadvantage? I say 50%. Therefore if the ratio is not 50/50, this means discrimination that we have to reverse through affirmative action. See how easy it is to justify discrimination?

ALH,

You ask, "see how easy it is to reverse discrimination"?

NO?

correction; justify, not reverse. But I had reverse in mind also.

Discrimination is natural ! Sometimes we just wrongly call it fate or bad luck !

@Altrav

"Reverse discrimination" is still a form of discrimination. The opposite of discrimination is to be indiscriminate. That means, at least as far as identity is concerned, to be indiscriminate as to the persons sexual/gender leanings.

Now, if you want to argue that some kind of alternative discrimination is required to achieve a goal, then do so. But that just proves my point, that these goals can't be achieved without discrimination, which must mean discrimination AGAINST someone, and more troubling, against someone who DID NOTHING WRONG.

against someone who DID NOTHING WRONG.
Assembly Line Human
Doing nothing is wrong too !