Discrimination against male applicants - QLD Police

Has anyone else seen the articles about the QLD Police's discriminatory hiring practices?

https://7news.com.au/news/qld/queensland-police-union-labels...

I work in the private sector in middle management and I know for a fact that in my current and previous companies, the 50/50 quota gets discussed behind closed doors when making decisions on who to hire, but I never expected to see such a public reveal from within a government agency.

For the record, I don't agree with a simple 50/50 quota and think that people should get hired based on merit only. I get that there are certain positions where having a particular sex may be more desirable (such as a counsellor or health professional that mainly deals with female patients or vice versa), but for the majority, whoever has the experience or capability should get the role rather than aiming for a 50/50.

It'd be interesting to see how many others have experienced this kind of thing at their place of employment. So fire away and share your stories about your employment and quotas!

Comments

  • To those who are carrying on about “but some roles don’t need physical strength/insert attribute here” so quotas must be good, you are forgetting that general duties “on the beat” policing is where almost all start.

  • this is why university education should not be subsided: it produces lazy, ungrateful ideologues with no justification for their existence but to spread this woke agenda

  • +1

    welcome to OzBogan, everyone

  • +9

    I've worked in dozens of hiring departments and the wrong candidate can always get hired regardless of the company's requirements

    When my mum was younger, she had accepted that the best she could ever become was a receptionist. The women's rights for fights in the 80's changed that and she now earns $250k in her 60s.
    My sister once mentioned she wanted to be a police officer when she was small, my cop uncle (quietly) told us that she'd never get in because vicpol was designed to accept males and had a boys mentality and females struggled to stay in the role. That's not the case anymore.

    Over the years, working in the industry I've seen that quotas are less about being a woke rule for that specific job, and more about changing the industry in the long term and building confidence for younger females to feel like they don't have to be pigeon holed into being a mum or a specific role built for females, but seeing that the options are open for them.

    • +1

      I don't think you'd find someone here who would disagree, it's not even about changing the entry requirements to be more inclusive. It's about a less capable candidate being hired solely to balance the books.

      And yes as people have said, it was never perfect before, be it the bosses child getting fast tracked or some other kind of favouritism / unfair advantage.

      It's difficult because as you said minorities in the workplace exist and industries are still heavily skewed because of this. So now the metaphorical doors are open for everyone by every metric and measure the question now is- Do we have some kind of aministy or balancing to offset the past, or do we let it naturally correct by focusing only on the most fair hiring process and let the percentage fall where it will?

      I'm personally as fan of the latter. Nothing is exactly 50/50 and it's well documented as an aggregate of society just as I don't particularly want to become a GP, there is inherent differences in the genders which on average have them gravitating toward different fields based purely off their interests. To go down the rabbit hole further I wouldn't enter into the debate that these differences are impressed upon them subconsciously through society as it's has not practical conclusion or actionable outcome.

      • +2

        Agreed. It might feel unfair to theorise that a "potential better candidate" didn't get hired because they were male. But then I think about how many decades did a better female candidate not get hired for roles in the past because of blatant sexism. Some of which I witnessed in my time at work not very long ago.

        • +2

          So us guys should pay for the sins of guys in the past in the name of fairness? That we are somehow related and must be condemned to eternal purgatory for sharing a chromosome. If you wanted a war between the sexes, this is a great way to go about it.

          • @something something: Trust me I'm the first one to step up for this inherent guilt crap, like all these cases of having male school children stand up to apologise on behalf of their sex..

            But likewise, in this particular situation they are starting on the back foot. It's really the generation after 2000s which has been the first one through the ranks with any resemblance of equality. I know a lot of females getting in the trades now who are mid to early 20s, add another 10 years on that not much representation from the 35s, another 10? Hardly anyone female and 45 turning a spanner.

            They should receive all the support in the world to take it to the natural level of interest. If you want to do it there should be nothing stopping you. But that help should not come at the hiring process, it's at education, role models, classes, guilds, unions, or whatever. Hiring should always be on skill only. Make the entrance example and practical completely anonymous, no name, age, address - nothing personally identifying what so ever then there's nothing to complain about.

            • +1

              @peterpaoliello:

              education, role models, classes, guilds, unions, or whatever

              If a woman sees a room full of men and only men, what's the chance she'll want to stay? As oppose to a room full of men and women?

              • @Ughhh: I have no idea what an individual, or a whole gender feel comfortable with, nor am I going to guess. I would say I doubt it'll be a surprise going into a trade, studying engineering, computer science etc of the gender imbalance. If I go into study early childhood studies equally I wouldn't be shocked to find my sex in the minority. Is that uncomfortable, not really, would I care. No. It's a reflection of the workplace after all.

                What I am saying though is the nuanced approach toward support and encouragement is available before the interview in whatever form is required, if that's targeted campaigns or female only training - whatever. Stupid, but if the need is there go for it. The moment the hiring process starts everyone is equal, which is the response to the topic of this thread.

                • @peterpaoliello: Would you spend money and time studying something to get a job, when you know that job was going to the managers son?

                  The quota concept is not perfect, nothing really ever is.

                  • @Ughhh: If that's an analogy for gender preference it's exactly what I mean, do away with quotas and make the hiring process complely blind - but give all people the tools to participate in it fairly and equally. A forced outcome is no outcome at all, no individual is more deserving of a job than anyone else beyond their ability to fulfil the requirements of the position. That goes for race, sexual orientation, age, and gender.

                    And also skills are transferable, so yes I would study as I'd be doing it for myself since they're not lost if I miss that one particular position. Unfair internal promotions is ironically an issue which impacts everyone equally.

          • @something something: A war? Because a handful of companies want to fill a role where females are under represented?

            Seems extreme.

          • +1

            @something something: You are told you shouldn't judge people for their group identity, but the same people are quite happy to judge you for your group identity.

            People don't really want to get rid of oppression… they want to become the oppressor.

  • I think that ratios of gender for given roles could be better served by looking at the full pool of applicants… The people who are interested in doing the job. If you're aiming for a 50/50 split but only 10% of your applicants are a particular gender, then you start discriminating to meet your target. Maybe looking at your applicant ratios and using that to guide, and these ratios may shift over time, then at least you can make more balanced decisions.

    • +2

      But shouldn't you address why the pool of applicants is so skewed?
      What if the reason you don't get applications is because they see the workplace and think (as a woman, say), "I don't want to work with a bunch of men".
      Maybe if the workplace was more balanced, you would get a more balanced set of applicants?
      For a particular workplace, if there is no fundamental reason for a gender imbalance other than "oh, women don't like it", then we should push to make it more equal.

      • So this is a temporary measure is what you're saying to reach parity, even though as you've said it's from a smaller pool of applicants and with all else being equal they wouldn't have been hired for the job in the same numbers if it wasn't for their gender?

        So what's the prerequisite for preferential treatment - Do we decide based on race? Sexual orientation? Age discrimination is real - that too? Have percentage split for every category of repressed minority?

        I agree there's issues and inherented imbalance but I don't necessarily agree with the eligibility requirements and methods to resolve it for one particular group.

  • +6

    Would be great if people were hired on merit. Turns out it depends more on if you have a white sounding name or not.

    https://www.upskilled.edu.au/skillstalk/changing-your-name-w...

  • +1

    Same in the mining sector. We've even been to told place diversity above experience when hiring. There's also a whole host of measures aimed at hiring, promoting, up-skilling and retaining women with no equivalent programs for men. They even run campaigns saying women aren't hired just for being women, yet 67% of new hires must be female, meanwhile about 80% of graduates in our fields are male. Likewise women are being promoted at much faster rates to increase female management representation, despite frequently having half the experience of the equivalent stand-out males. Unsurprisingly, in our company-wide employee surveys, males have a notably lower rating for the likes of development, company value etc.

  • -2

    My place has to keep sacking the female managers after a few weeks, been going through them like hotcakes because they keep hiring numties that can't handle anything and have no experience, guess what, they are all female, I wonder…..

    • +1

      Interesting. The only people who has been sacked at my work were all men, for poor attitude and inability to follow simple instructions. Latest one being a PhD grad.

    • Sounds like the people doing the recruiting are the numpties if they keep hiring the wrong people for the job. It's not like women are inherently bad at management, quite the opposite. We're a pretty organised bunch.

      • It's not that women or men are any worse at better at the role, but if you have 10 applicants that are men and 1 female, and she is chosen because of her gender and not work experience, that's a problem. It would also be bad the other way around, if men were hired preferentially in female dominated industries, it would be a mess. Sex based hiring is rascist and as you say, the fault does lie with the recruiters. These women would be perfectly fine at the job with more experience. Sex based hiring ensures incompetent people rise to the top instantly, that will never be a good solution.

  • +2

    Some men have been getting jobs because of what school they went to, who they play golf with, what club they are in,etc for many years. But as soon as some mention "lets get a bit more diversity around the table by having one eye on hiring qualified women/minorities" people squawk like winged ducks about it being unfair. Said old men don't completely run the world anymore and they don't like it. Hiriing unqualified candidates for roles can be fraught with danger - if these diversity/inclusion policices function properly, can address the biases certain groups face in getting selected and actual qualified people from said groups can fulfill the requirements of the role - great. Speaking of the public service, imo APS employees should not only serve the people but represent the people. You can't have a public service that properly represents all Australians if the program is full of blokes.

    • +4

      People don't need to be the same sex or race as you to 'represent' you. People who feel they do should look at their own biases.

      • -3

        Mate until you've given birth, I beg to differ.

        • +5

          Did giving birth make you sexist or racist??

          • -1

            @trapper: Does wanting people who've been through the same thing involved in my care make me sexist?

            • +2

              @MissG: Maybe not if that specific care is directly related to that shared experience. Otherwise basically yes.

              But that's your right as a patient to be comfortable, so don't worry about it too much.

              • +1

                @trapper: I think this is also why there needs to be a lot more female coppers, for different reasons.

                • +1

                  @MissG: Sexist female criminals only want to be arrested by female coppers? I've heard it all now! ;)

                  • +1

                    @trapper: Not at all, women at risk may feel safer with female coppers. More about community safety than the crims themselves.

  • -1

    lol

  • The HR and management at my old company discard applicants with names that are muslim in origin and people not born in Australia. They of course do this in secret and you can tell they're massive racists (not because people are Muslim, but because of people's races). Me having massive cojones always call them out on it since I'm about as bogan as they come with my accent.
    However, Indian nationals with a lot of contract experience are looked favourably upon because they're easily discarded and do amazing work in the short time they're with the company. They don't necessarily ask for permanent contracts and if they do, their current contract is left to expire.

    It's predominantly a white Christian demographic in management that don't do any real work except hiring/firing/performance management and budgeting, and of course the old conniving diktats with HR.

  • +1

    Men and woman have different representations in different jobs primarily because men and woman have different interests.

    Targeting some arbitrarily ratio and then hiring discriminately until it is reached will not change this.

  • +1

    I work for a government trading corporation. In the last 3 years we've lost most of the females on the leadership team and they've been replaced by far less capable guys whose main qualification appears to be that they are part of a "network". The place has gone backwards because of it.
    I fully support positive discrimination.

  • +1

    I think this is across governments.

    I was discriminated against when I applied for a job in the government. I can't say too much publicly but it was quite obvious.

  • There shouldn’t be reverse discrimination. Candidate should be hired based on meritocracy

  • +1

    I think frontline services need to reflect the population they're delivering to. To date hiring has totally discriminated in favour of one gender over another, using criteria (merit is criteria dressed up), set by the discriminating gender. I do think that if the people setting the criteria for entry are a diverse group, then you probably wont end up needing quotas. But the community needs more women police officers. The force has totally failed on domestic violence, and the police have higher than community average domestic violence offenders within their own ranks, which is part of the reason their response has failed. 'Merit' (and again, it's just criteria) as it stands, has not solved this. So you either change the composition of the workforce, or you redefine the criteria for entry. When the composition of your workforce is skewed, the outcomes are skewed, the behaviour is skewed, bullying goes up. It just doesn't work. Healthcare is a great example, there's increasing numbers of male nurses every year and the effect on the workplace has been great.

    But I do think the diversity needs to be up much higher than the junior recruits. It needs to be reflected at the top. And I do think we all need to stop taking this so personally (and I'm the first to admit I have done in the past). I have trust that this will head in a positive direction for all because even though on the face of it it may look like that some men will be lost in the process, they are not, it is a process of equalisation. And those that are lost aren't going to be the good guys. Far from it.

  • It's time to identify myself as a 'gay religious vegan dark-skin' applicant

    • Congratulations, you got the job

  • +1

    The world has gone mad. We will see more of trump similar parties and extreme groups going forward. Common sense is ignored now Nd people will vote in was they normally wouldn't simply because they will feel as though noone is listening.

  • bobbified

    OP username fits.

  • +1

    It seems to be a strange assertion anyway - that hiring even less qualified candidates could improve the police force.

    • +1

      They're not looking at far ahead. Management says we need to make these numbers, just do it!

  • +1

    Have faced Implicit bias. My manager being a female would prefer to recruit female employees. She would say easy to manage female staff.

    Also in the HR policy and training manual, there is a question like "If a male manager, prefer to recruit male employee…. It may constitute to an implicit bias". OK. what about the other way around?

    • That's why you need diversity on the hiring committee and those setting the criteria. If a diverse group achieves consensus, then you'll most likely get the best person for the job because they'll all keep each other in check.

      • I don't agree with that, what happened with me I was put on hiring with a senior male, and I had no say, don't even know what the point of me being there was.

        • +1

          Not enough people on the hiring committee if there is still a major power imbalance. It can't be token diversity, it needs to be equal distribution of power and opinion.

  • +2

    Shame they don't discriminate against men in real dangerous jobs… You know the ones that account for 95% of deaths of Australians at work being male. Don't see anyone campaigning for more women in those jobs.
    https://www.amhf.org.au/exactly_how_big_is_the_gender_health...

    • It doesn't list what those jobs are though so how can you know if there are campaigns for diversity in them? And that number is so horrible it sounds like there SHOULD be more women in those jobs, perhaps the safety practices would improve.

  • +3

    I work for a large Australian company, and we have FY21 targets for % women. I won't quote directly but it will be really close whether we hit the target or not, and the commentary, distributed company wide, openly states that of y number of employees leaving for the remainder of the year, a number only slightly less than y need to be filled by women.

    HR and hiring managers hear that message loud and clear. It is almost impossible to suggest that there won't be discrimination against males for the rest of the year.

    Now, some may argue there is no issue with this.

    What I don't like, is that the company doesn't own it, and maintains that all roles are filled based on merit.

  • So on my next job application I must remember to put under listed qualifications…Has ovaries ;) Honestly, I'd feel humiliated if I was only hired because of my sex. I want to be hired because I'm the best of the bunch. But at present i'm in a female dominated industry, so presence ovaries is currently of no benefit :(

  • Surprised no one has mentioned "Red Pill", documentary movie about men's rights and how they were misrepresented. Really presented the case well. Have any hard target for diversity is controversial, but the HR agreed to it. Eg, they wanted to change the gender dynamic really quickly vs outreach programs targeting woman etc.

    • Very few want to know that there is a red pill let alone learn about it…. Most are happy with the blue one, following popular trends and 'influencers' online like sheep. The truth doesn't fit the current mantra.

      • I watched it, ozbargain-style (downloaded)! 😁.

  • i hate this zoomer PC woke bullcrap, it's plain cringe and extremely unprogressive.

  • +3

    How can 50:50 be fair in a tranx and non-binary world?

  • +1

    And at my child's school a well like contract male teacher is constantly at risk of not being re-contracted whilst the female dominated permanent staff get to cut corners.

    Where can men go to complain about sexism?
    What platform exists?

    What about medical students? More females than males (though not by much)

    Opportunity Vs outcomes, jp argues this point well.

  • If I'm going to put in handcuffs, prefer a women do it.

    • -2

      I've seen some pretty man-ly women! Not sure if you'd really like one of those to be slapping the cuffs on!

      • Ex train security guards guessing.

        Seen some woman-ly female police officers here in NSW. I'd feel more in my safe space if they breached my interpersonal zone bubble than some meat eating male.

  • +2

    OzBargain's take on gender equality in the work place. this is going to be good!

    https://i.imgur.com/JznFHUM.gif

  • -1

    found the boomer.
    downvote please.

  • -1

    My mate works for a government department which last year culled 60% of their workforce. He told me he is untouchable as he's aboriginal.

    Whether we like it or not it's coming. Diversity score will be factored in to hiring.

    Points for:
    Female Gender
    ATSI
    LGBTQI

    It's easy for them to justify, because all you have to do is point at the statistics.
    For women they just need to point to the pay gap
    For ATSI you can do the same plus many more arguments

  • +1

    It's not about quotas. It's about acknowledging male privilege, I work in IT and I have have more quals experience and know how to do certain things my male colleagues don't, they still get paid more, even that gets used against me 'you know too much and that means you're not empowering your male colleagues' but when they know something I don't, there's no impetus on them to share the knowledge. And not a small company either partly related to government. Ive never had opportunities or higher pay 'just because I'm a woman' that's not even possible, all I can ever hope for is equal pay.

    Oh another problem- having 1 team we all do the same thing but are all on different contracts with different pay, how can you compare The Gender Pay gap if you put everyone on different contracts to do the same job? HR don't care, they don't have a clue and just parrot back whatever is the latest 'industry study' and the non-technical parts of the company just listen to the majority which is all men in tech leadership.

    What about when you go to Harvey Norman or similar and it's all men on sales floor, same in car dealerships, especially for more posh brands like Audi, lots of women sitting there just taking phone calls, greeting guests. Why not acknowledge the privilege? Get a male sales person to show her the ropes? Oh why not?
    Because 'woman aren't good negotiators' 'women are too emotional' 'women aren't interested in cars'

    Now let's say you've got a qualified woman to get into those places- what about the fact that's it's all a boys club and she is implicitly disadvantaged due to the social structure?

    • Ive never had opportunities or higher pay 'just because I'm a woman' that's not even possible, all I can ever hope for is equal pay.

      Do you actively go and seek out the opportunities? Because I'm a guy and sometimes even I find it difficult to navigate through all the politics and red tape, but I find that perseverance and making your intentions very clear helps a lot.

      we all do the same thing but are all on different contracts with different pay, how can you compare The Gender Pay gap if you put everyone on different contracts to do the same job?

      This isn't limited to female vs male though. There's huge pay differences between males too. Everywhere you go, there are people doing the same jobs on higher pay and those on lower pay. For example, my company rarely gives payrises and if they do, it's not very much. So if someone (like myself) has been around for a while, there's a good chance that their pay is lower than the new hires. That has nothing to do with gender and more to do with the market rate at the time each person was hired. The company isn't going to voluntarily increase your pay each year in line with the market. It's up to the individual to go and ask for an increase or leave and find another job. Basically, if you don't ask, you don't get. I've had to do that a few times and there have been times where I've had to leave to make a point. Then 6-12 months later, they ask me to come back with a salary offer significantly higher than before - even more than what I was asking for previously. It really is just all fun and games in the corporate world.

  • You might want to look at this.

    https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publ...

    Basically they got pinged only because they went about things the wrong way.

    From the article:
    Positive discrimination is allowed when an exemption is granted but Queensland Police never asked for one, MacSporran told reporters on Wednesday. “The irony is … you can apply to the Commission for an exemption for positive affirmative discrimination. It wasn’t done here so it was unlawful conduct,” he said.***

    • Discrimination isn’t necessarily a bad thing anyway, the word itself I mean. Showing discrimination about things can make you healthier, it can save your kids from bad situations, get you a better job working for more ethical and morally responsible employers that will treat you like a real person.

      • That's not the kind of discrimination we're talking about though.

        I think there are better ways than to offset the mistreatment and discrimination against a generation of women than discriminating against and mistreating a new generation of men that didn't participate in the former generation's sins.

  • There's a fix for that.

    If you're a male wear a pink wig for interview, say you pronounce is She/Her and threaten to sue for gender discrimination if you won't get hired.

    Bonus points if you can also identify as disabled, gay and aboriginal. That's CEO level of skills right there.

    Easy-peasy.

    Funny enough does not work other way around too, so win-win.

    • -2

      Now that you can apparently identify as whatever Gender you want, I am waiting for a company to do the miraculous by achieving a 50/50 quota overnight, by just going and asking some of their male staff to tick "female" on their employee details form, and just like that they could change the "gender" imbalance with some people ticking a box.

    • 95% of Australian CEOs are men. Seems like being a white male is the actual way to get a free ride to being a CEO.

      • -1

        How many Australian men are CEOs?

        • +1

          More than the number of Australian women that are CEOs.

      • There are very few CEOs.

        These people mostly men are outliers.

        Most men (rather than women) are Garbo’s and prisoners so what exactly is your point ?

      • +1

        83% of Australian CEO's are men.

        But 99.96% of Australian men are not CEOs - not exactly a 'free ride' is it lol

        • It's almost like you actually need a qualification and experience, and not just have a male appendage.

      • About the same percentage of garbage collectors are men.

      • And 95% of whores are women. Is it competency, capability or market preference? By extension is your argument that gender imbalance in the industry is due to discrimination? What exactly is your point?

  • +1

    The chance to train to be a cop should be drafted imo, not just 50/50 genders but actual representative samplings of their own region. Right now we have cops that are all young men who want to be cops. Which isn’t exactly the top minds from society. A group of cops on a taskforce doesn’t give you the A-Team. The things that should make a good cop can be found in all kinds of people.

    Most the murders of gay people that happened in our lifetime, that the police never investigated because “eww, gay people are icky” never would have happened if there were more gay cops. And police never would have ignored violence against women if half of all cops were women. The entire culture and bias and all the glaring blindspots of police culture would be upturned if the opportunity to train to be a cop were based on a random (but representational) draft. If cops were all random people from random backgrounds then the average cop probably wouldn’t even “just know” that they need to help cover up crimes by politicians or people with political influence. The culture or casual corruption that is so prevalent in Australia would also be upturned. The kind of people who could be successful politicians would change.

    • -1

      Should we also have granny cops and kindy cops too? Otherwise, you know, it's not really representative sampling of society.
      Hint: being a law enforcement officer has nothing to do with representation.

      • Of course we should have granny and kindy cops, I thought I clearly implied that already.

    • +3

      What happens when a criminal goes all nuts.

      Does the female officer offer the kind of protection to her partner as a male officer does?

      It no doubt puts a lot of the physical responsibility on the male officer and endangers them.

      Or is it that the female officers get all the cushy jobs whilst the men all go frontline?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBygvMinAd0

      • +1

        You'd have a criminal cop for that, duh. Muh representation.

      • -2

        If you’re a man, why bother calling the cops at all when someone goes all nuts, why not take care of it yourself?

        • +1

          Misandry at its finest. What an obnoxious comment designed to cause an argument.

      • +1

        Is violence is the only way to solve/calm a situation?

        • I would expect it is most times when dealing with meth psychosis etc.

          • @mdavant: Do you think maybe some mentally unstable dangerous men could be more easily agitated or triggered by another alpha male?

            • @Ughhh: Sorry, where did I say that the criminal was male?

              Are you being sexist / stereotyping.

              Talk about misandry.

              • @mdavant: You didn't give a more specific possible situation /example, so I am , didn't say you said that, calm down.
                No need to get so defensive.

Login or Join to leave a comment