Page 2 | "You have to employ a woman"

MatterOfThyme · 2022-08-31T18:05:04+00:00

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.

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:29

Why would you think women aren't using the standard job search platforms? Nothing in my suggestion implied that they don't. My point is that if a job is also advertised in forums that are aimed at or majority read by women, then you are increasing the chances of the job advert being seen by women and for the women who see the job advert to perhaps consider the topic matter where they might not have done otherwise.

Original poster

MatterOfThyme · 31/08/2022 22:35

FKATondelayo · 31/08/2022 22:29

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.

I've seen the correspondence with his HR dept so I know he's telling me the truth. He was shocked and asked for my advice/ perspective as a woman. As I said, my DH has no issue employing women. He does have an issue employing someone unfit for the role. He hasn't got resource to be training someone if he could have a candidate that's able to hit the ground running, and the rest of the team shouldn't need to pick up that slack

OP posts:

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 31/08/2022 22:35

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:06

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.

Fgs any woman who is incapable of looking at the normal industry related websites where job opportunities are advised really doesn't deserve a job.

Rummikub · 31/08/2022 22:37

MatterOfThyme · 31/08/2022 22:23

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.

Show quote history

Chicken/egg

Should the organisation make changes to recruit differently or maintain the status quo?

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 31/08/2022 22:38

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:29

Why would you think women aren't using the standard job search platforms? Nothing in my suggestion implied that they don't. My point is that if a job is also advertised in forums that are aimed at or majority read by women, then you are increasing the chances of the job advert being seen by women and for the women who see the job advert to perhaps consider the topic matter where they might not have done otherwise.

Sorry any woman in a professional sector who is incapable of navigating her way around relevant industry related websites and has to rely on Mumsnet doesn't deserve a job, let alone special treatment.

How infantilising.

Original poster

MatterOfThyme · 31/08/2022 22:38

FemaleAndLearning · 31/08/2022 22:28

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.

Hmm I guess the job ads could be written to draw in more women without being overt in doing so. That would be down to HR - my DH doesn't write the ads, set the policies etc. It's a massive global organisation so no single person 'running HR' - it's a department. No the ad definitely didn't say it was only open to women.

OP posts:

FKATondelayo · 31/08/2022 22:41

Your husband works for a massive global business and he's shown you an email in writing from HR that tells him to break the 2010 Equality Act? I don't not believe it - we know a lot of US multinationals are fairly ignorant of how discrimination law operates in other territories (Forstater vs CGD e.g.) but at the same time I don't understand why he is asking you 'to get a women's opinion' rather than pushing back.

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:42

Ok. So not what I meant at all. As I clarified. My point is that he could be actively searching out suitably qualified women in a variety of ways that suit his particular industry and job role. Advertising the role on diverse platforms is one easy way. Other people have mentioned other approaches like considering the wording and content of the job advert. Whatever they have been doing clearly isn't working to attract suitably qualified women. If his HR are serious about improving their gender balance, then these are the sorts of things they need to consider. Not just telling one manager that he needs to act illegally.

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:44

That was to @TheLassWiADelicateAir and the comment that I am "infantilising" women somehow with very normal suggestions on how to diversify this company's hiring methods.

Original poster

MatterOfThyme · 31/08/2022 22:45

FKATondelayo · 31/08/2022 22:41

Your husband works for a massive global business and he's shown you an email in writing from HR that tells him to break the 2010 Equality Act? I don't not believe it - we know a lot of US multinationals are fairly ignorant of how discrimination law operates in other territories (Forstater vs CGD e.g.) but at the same time I don't understand why he is asking you 'to get a women's opinion' rather than pushing back.

Er...because we have a communicative marriage and talk to each other about things that we're unsure or concerned about?

OP posts:

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 31/08/2022 22:47

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:44

That was to @TheLassWiADelicateAir and the comment that I am "infantilising" women somehow with very normal suggestions on how to diversify this company's hiring methods.

You are infantilising women.

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:51

No. We will have to agree to disagree. You have drawn mad conclusions from making mad assumptions about my posts and drawing inferences that just aren't there.

Soontobe60 · 31/08/2022 23:01

MatterOfThyme · 31/08/2022 19:25

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.

Show quote history

Why is he discussing the credentials of applicants with you?

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 31/08/2022 23:11

RoseslnTheHospital · 31/08/2022 22:51

No. We will have to agree to disagree. You have drawn mad conclusions from making mad assumptions about my posts and drawing inferences that just aren't there.

Well we will have to disagree as you say.

Any woman in a professional sector who is incapable of navigating her way round industry related websites and has to be persuaded to apply by seeing a vacancy advertised in Mumsnet isn't worth employing.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 31/08/2022 23:36

And as you've just said on another thread Women aren't children or mentally incapable.

MangyInseam · 01/09/2022 02:35

This sort of thing is becoming more common and accepted, but what it amounts to is overt discrimination on the basis of sex.

People make the excuse that it is ok because it means the workplace (or university course or whatever) is balanced, and they focus only on the individuals who get the jobs on this basis.

What they conveniently ignore is the real individuals who have just in material fact been told they can't have the job because they are men/asian/white/straight or whatever.

Every time you give a person a job because of one of these characteristics it also means not giving it because of the same category.

It's just institutionalizing a basis for sexism/racism, etc. against individuals.

Rummikub · 01/09/2022 06:19

So what’s the solution?

Sparklfairy · 01/09/2022 06:33

This happened to me a few years ago. Sales role, so it was naturally male dominated. The only women they employed were on the front desk/HR/accounts etc.

I thought it was strange that the three new starters were all women

I understood when after the 3 month probation we had all been let go. Never mind that the sales funnel was typically 4+ months and I'd smashed the office record for booking most appointments in a day.

But if anyone checked, it looked like they'd attempted to fairly recruit and the women just happened to be unsuitable

SudocremOnEverything · 01/09/2022 06:36

Rummikub · 01/09/2022 06:19

So what’s the solution?

The solution is that HR actually do some work to understand why these roles aren’t attracting suitably qualified and experienced female candidates (who will exist) and take measures to address these issues.

Instructing managers to illegally discriminate against male applicants is not how to solve this.

NecessaryScene · 01/09/2022 06:42

So what’s the solution?

Go back a step. What's the problem? What are you trying to solve.

Not having the demographics you would personally like to see in your team is not a problem in itself. Whether what you would like to see is "all white", "all female", "50/50 by sex" or "racially representative of the UK population (despite being in Scotland)".

Whatever you're trying to solve about your statistics, how much unfairness to individuals can we justify in the name of numbers?

If the numbers can help you find unfairness to individuals that would "improve" your numbers, great! That would be a worthy cause. But being unfair to individuals to improve numbers gets dark very fast, IMO.

ArcticSkewer · 01/09/2022 06:47

It's illegal so he can't do it. Unless he likes breaking the law at work?

brookstar · 01/09/2022 06:55

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.

Then why aren't qualified women applying? That needs addressing.

If, and I mean if as it seems unlikely, your DHs company is practising positive discrimination then it's illegal.
Positive or affirmative action isn't so there are lots of things they can do to ensure a pipeline of suitably qualified women.

MajesticElephant · 01/09/2022 07:13

I’m pretty sure I got my job this way. The giveaway being that I’m the only female on the bottom two floors of our building (top floor is HR!). Saying that I also have a fairly obvious disability so I probably tick all kinds of boxes. I don’t really care, I’m more than qualified for the role and the money is excellent. You need a thick skin with that many men around though because the banter is… interesting.

Redqueenheart · 01/09/2022 07:21

This is discrimination and illegal.

For some vacancies you can state in the job ad that you are only looking for female applicants but there needs to be an 'occupational requirement': for example that could apply to staff for women's shelters, hostels or for carers or therapists working with female victims of domestic violence.

If there is no occupational requirement what your partner is being asked to do is illegal.

He should go back to HR, and copy his line manager, and state in writing that although he understands that the organisation wants to be more diverse he cannot and will not do this as he would be breaking the law and that he will only shortlist and then appoint the best people for any roles going.

If he had female applicants it is worth shortlisting at least one of them who might not have as much experience as the men applying but who seems to have the right attitude and drive so that he has at least a mixed shortlist.

Luredbyapomegranate · 01/09/2022 07:31

Schoolchoicesucks · 31/08/2022 19:13

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.

I am no expert, but this is what I have understood.

I think he needs to talk to his boss. HR don’t always understand what candidates need to be suitable. They also don’t always understand that if you want more diverse workforce you sometimes have to go out and find them, and that takes time and resources.