"You have to employ a woman"

[MatterOfThyme]

Not sure if I'm posting in the right place but feeling really annoyed about this!

DH is recruiting to grow his team. His HR have told him he can ONLY interview women, in order to have equal representation (he already has 2 men on his team). Now, DH couldn't care less if the person he employs is male or female - he's bothered about their experience and aptitude.

As a woman though, this really riles me. It positions women as some sort of pity case. If I got a job purely because the other candidates were men, I'd be livid. DH has had some really excellent men applying and been told he can't interview them because of their gender. Conversely, he's being encouraged to interview completely unsuitable female candidates.

It seems like a sort of reverse-discrimination.

This has just happened to me (see my adjacent thread). I’ve been shortlisted in preference to a male candidate even though we both had the same score. I’m contemplating pulling out.

It's wrong

It would be fair for him to be asked to consider applications that look less promising - because women tend to undersell themselves for example

Funnily enough had similar situation at our place - "give the women a leg up " said one of about 20 men present - both of us women then replied - " no just be aware of judging a women poorly because of her socialisation" ( with sone examples of where they were doing just that )

Surely he should just interview females who ARE suitable? Or is he saying that there are no suitable females?

What country is this in? Goes against all EDI training I've ever received (UK).

I've been told that if you have 2 equally scoring candidates, you are allowed to appoint the one that would balance out any under-representation. But not to appoint a lower scoring candidate over a higher one. Or to refuse to consider a group of candidates.

That's outright sex discrimination, and could well get them into legal difficulties. If there is no reason the role requires a woman, sex discrimination is not permitted.

He should tell them this quite politely, and tell them to consult with the legal team, and that he's not comfortable with this.

Next step might be to report them to whatever whistleblowing/ethics team you have, rather than be complicit.

Potentially it helps the team to be more diverse. If there isn't a female candidate that meets the criteria then by all means interview men. We tend to prefer people like us, so a male team will continue to prioritise men unless actively choosing otherwise.

It's really unfortunate that for all 3 roles there has been zero suitable women.

Why would you pull out if you've got the same score? Do you think you're less qualified? Do you think he deserves it more? Why do you feel you SHOULD'T be shortlisted if you're as suited to the role as your male contemporary but women are underrepresented? That makes no sense!

I got a job many years ago.. I wasn't the first person offered.. I was told later they were concerned about diversity so I offered it to someone else but they turned it down..

It is a very male dominated niche which is probably why HR are particularly pushing for this. The female applicants have quite clearly just been applying for any jobs going, but didn't have a good skills match to the role. Whereas the male applicants were genuinely interested in this particular role and had the right skills.. that's not to say a good female WON'T come along. But currently he has a number of good male candidates, and under par female ones.

As PP have mentioned, "positive action" is lawful but positive discrimination is not, unless there is an "occupational requirement".

Lawful positive action is where two candidates have the same score. In those circumstances it is lawful to prefer a candidate from an under-represented group.

Positive discrimination is where a less qualified candidate is preferred over a better qualified candidate solely because of a protected characteristic. This is lawful only if there is a "genuine occupational requirement" for the appointee to possess a particular protected characteristic.

If DH is being asked to practice positive action, that is lawful. If DH is being asked to practice positive discrimination, he should email HR and ask them if there is a a "genuine occupational requirement" for the postholder to be female (making it lawful for him to discriminate on the grounds of sex), and if so what that is. If an occupational requirement cannot be provided, the male applicants against whom there has been unlawful discrimination would have grounds for complaint to an employment tribunal.

Well - it the reality is that a lot lot lot of time the message is it has to be a man - even if it isn’t explicit 🤷‍♀️

Could he secretly tell the male candidate to identify as a woman for the duration of the interview?

Can he not go back to his managers and ask what strategies could be employed to find women who are suitably qualified, rather than wait for them to apply and ignore any men that are applying? Or think of ways he could do that for himself? What are the barriers that are making this niche role only accessible for men and not that many women atm?

I really hope you're not advising anyone on HR policies.

Absolutely correct.

All male teams have to stop their discriminatory behaviour and attitudes. It is absolutely NOT a pity case for women but instead a
Valiant attempt by HR to end the discriminatory practices/culture in place by your husband &!)8/ team.

Unless he (& you ) are suggesting that every single man is in power because they are better than women? And ignoring the silent bias in favour of men & the sexism that has created a 'male' niche in their work culture.

Absolutely past time that this culture was stamped out & true meritocracy able to flourish rather than rhe "boys club" mentality that has reigned supreme for decades.

There are no such things as male jobs & female jobs, just management teams that block (or make a culture too horrific for ) women.

Tell your dh to give his head a wobble & proactively ask talented women to apply.

Handy cartoon to explain affirmative action for the sexist or uneducated types.

@beacbeachcitygirl but males and females always had equal access to these roles. And if a female with correct experience / skills applied, they would be very much welcomed. But, regardless of gender, why would a lower quality candidate be selected over a better one. Or potentially well suited and keen candidates told they cannot apply.

Re: encouraging talented women to apply...that would mean actively advertising the roles as "for women only". And, as a woman, I wouldn't be chuffed about that. This is a niche that tends to greatly appeal to men. Think tractor manufacture, or rugby etc. Now that's not to say NO women would be interested. There are women in the company. But it just tends to appeal more to men, and therefore the pool of quality female candidates with the specialist skills required is smaller.

This makes me really angry. You would not believe the amount of crap I've had to deal with in a male dominated environment because people assumed I was the token woman and therefore a pity case rather than someone chosen for being the best candidate. The worst bit is that assumption makes it so much harder to do your job that the assumption is then 'proven' in their eyes. It's not a positive step, it's actively damaging, and if he had women in the team I bet they'd be fighting back.

Re: encouraging talented women to apply...that would mean actively advertising the roles as "for women only".

Um, no it wouldn't. I'm not sure why you would think that? What it would mean, is actively advertising the role in places where women who are qualified would see it and be likely to want to apply. So, are there any industry organisations for women where this job could be advertised? Or could it be advertised in a forum where women are the major readership, like Mumsnet? Probably plenty of other ideas if he thought about it for a while.

Yes this.

The change has to start somewhere. And as pp stated organisations tend to appoint similar people.

Trainee positions if someone has potential?

I'm sure that this is legal. It's ok if your aim is to make a team more diverse. And the pp who said we tend to go for people like ourselves is absolutely correct. That's why it's needed to break the perpetual cycle.

Why are women not using standard job search platforms like TotalJobs, LinkedIn etc? That's the first place I'd go if job hunting, not a 'specialist industry organisation for women'. For what it's worth- the role itself tends to be just as many women as men (in other industries). It's the topic matter which is presumably putting good candidates off.

I was told recently that it is often how the job adverts are written so the word negotiate may put off a woman but liaise wouldn't.

What was the advert, did that day we will only be interviewing women? Who runs HR, clearly not someone qualified. Or else this is not a genuine post.

You've put this on the wrong forum.

Your husband might not be telling you the whole truth. Unless it is a role that is exempt under the EA (e..g in a women's refuge) it would be illegal to specify women only and his HR would know that.

There are plenty of reasons that women specifically would be deterred for applying for certain roles - company culture, a manager that doesn't have a good track record in diversity and equality, the wording of the advert, business travel, flexibility, qualifications, etc. It's not just down to advertising it on the usual platforms.