NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, it is hard to navigate. To the left shows 'All persons' with percentages and numbers (in thousands), adding up those for 2008 shows the total survey had 25 million participants (13m men and 12.4m women), the percentages come from these two numbers.

My comment involving part-time was meant to be comparing the numbers of women and men working part-time, i.e. it was more likely to find a woman with (more) part-time experience than a man. From the chart, those with <31 hours are 5,169,000 females and 1,397,000 males.

Within the numbers for women, I can't say if there are more full-time or part-time workers as the categories are too wide: 31-45hrs could include part-timers as well, and makes up the largest percentage (almost 50%).
OK, thanks. That is actually what I thought it said, but I wasn't sure. So it doesn't actually mean that most women have more part-time experience than full-time experience, and therefore that fails as a justification for a blanket policy of paying women less than men on the assumption that they are less likely to have full-time experience. This source provides no grounds for such an assumption, if it is being made.

Good thing I didn't say that, then.

Never said you did.

I see, they shouldn't be forced to do something, but they should be forced not to do something. Fine, good enough.

Umm what?

Partially, it's a matter of attitude. A woman who sees that women are valued in her company will be happier in her job. A man who sees that will be less likely to be rude to the women who are there. And people who have worked with minority groups are less likely to be a problem when such minority groups are customers, etc.

It's also a matter of perspective. People of different backgrounds often have different perspectives. If all of your workforce comes from a very similar background, they're also likely going to have very similar solutions to things. Having people with different outlooks, on the other hand, can bring more to the table.

Those are good points as why diversity is a good thing but it still shouldn't be forced onto the company as I said they should hire the person best for the company and if that means some people will be better at handling customers because he works with someone of that race which in turn will lead to better sales than so be it. As for your second point it is known as groupthink and is a problem for many companies and may not be the cause of a lack of diversity, it is always good to shake things up every now and then bring in a fresh pair of eyes.

That is a problem. And they should be much more afraid of discrimination lawsuits if they do this than if they don't.[/QUOTE]

Why would they after all the minority person who got the job is hardly going to lodge a complaint and a majority member is going to get a tough time from a lot of people including the courts that they did discriminate.

OK, thanks. That is actually what I thought it said, but I wasn't sure. So it doesn't actually mean that most women have more part-time experience than full-time experience, and therefore that fails as a justification for a blanket policy of paying women less than men on the assumption that they are less likely to have full-time experience. This source provides no grounds for such an assumption, if it is being made.

I made the comment as a suggestion that employers might discriminate over, not something I actually think. Yes, there is no justification for it, but there isn't for any kind of negative discrimination.

Screw that. I demand that when there is a "tiebreak" for a job vacancy between anyone, they must publicly roll dice to decide who gets it.

Screw that too! When there's a tiebreak for a job vacancy, I expect there to be a public fight to the death between the two applicants! The victor (who must also be the survivor, coincidentally) gets the job, the loser gets... erm... a free funeral.

Think of the television rights!!!

Never said you did.



Umm what?
You indicated that you don't think the law should make companies diversify, but that you do think the law should penalize discrimination. So, you don't think the law should force companies to do something (diversify) but you do think the law should force companies not to do something (discriminate). That's how I read your argument so far.

You indicated that you don't think the law should make companies diversify, but that you do think the law should penalize discrimination. So, you don't think the law should force companies to do something (discriminate) but you do think the law should force companies not to do something (discriminate). That's how I read your argument so far.

Fixed. I don't think the law should not force companies to diversify and I think the law should force companies not to discriminate.