| General > General Technical Chat |
| Diversity, Equity and Inclusion |
| << < (68/76) > >> |
| pcprogrammer:
But is that not what has always happened throughout history. People form groups and frown on everyone different from their point of view. Take integration of labor migrants, it somehow never happens the way we hope or want. They form their own communities within the bigger community and then start complaining about discrimination. Not saying there is no discrimination, but a lot of them don't make an effort to really integrate. I was born in the lesser neighborhoods of The Hague and at that time there certainly was discrimination of all sorts, but it was folksy. Went back after 30 years or so to show the wife where I was born, but did not feel welcomed at all. The houses from then where gone and new builds were erected. The people living there were mainly from Turkey, and they look upon you like "you don't belong here, get away from us". And equality in its whole is basically irrational to demand it. In live and work environment there is hierarchy and there are lots of different people and jobs. So yes you should be treated equal when it comes to the hiring for a single job, but not equal to someone in an unrelated job. And showing disrespect just because someone higher up the corporate ladder is a female and you are not means you are out of order. Disrespect is often wrong, but that is another matter. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on August 26, 2022, 10:52:55 am ---But is that not what has always happened throughout history. People form groups and frown on everyone different from their point of view. --- End quote --- Do you let that tribalism rule? Do you make your laws to codify that sort of behaviour? Does your company allow workers to frown on everyone different from their point of view? It is not at all clear cut what is ethically and morally right and acceptable with respect to tribalism, particularly when one considers the long-term effects. We probably should accept some tribalism as natural, for example letting people decide from themselves where they want to live, assuming they can afford it and support themselves and their families there. I do not accept it when it goes as far as rejecting interaction with someone "out-group", nor when it becomes rejection of someone "in-group" because they're not a member of some protected group. In between those two limits, there is the gray area where I make up my mind on a case-by-case basis. --- Quote from: pcprogrammer on August 26, 2022, 10:52:55 am ---And equality in its whole is basically irrational to demand it. --- End quote --- Absolutely not. Equality is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome or equity, which is what you described. It is not okay at all to confuse the two. |
| tszaboo:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on August 26, 2022, 02:20:40 pm --- --- Quote from: pcprogrammer on August 26, 2022, 10:52:55 am ---And equality in its whole is basically irrational to demand it. --- End quote --- Absolutely not. Equality is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome or equity, which is what you described. It is not okay at all to confuse the two. --- End quote --- Equality: everyone gets the same opportunity. This is provided by law in most countries in the real world. Equity: also known as equality of outcome. People who feel oppressed will handicap you because they think it was easier because everyone is something-ist. People who feel oppressed to ism's, because they cannot fathom the possibility (due to narcissisms often time, another ism) that they lack something. "I didn't get into the university, because I scored lower? Must be because of my whatever status, let's lower the bar for people like me. Or let's lower it for me only, that's also fine." And equity is just plain and simple reverse ism. Where I studied, there was so many different type of aid and scholarship for students that came from poor families. But they had to pass the bar, and get the grades, just the same. Sounds fair, isn't it? |
| Nominal Animal:
It is also notable that in extremely strict hierarchies like the military, it is not the person that is above or more important than some other person, it is the job, or even the insignia. When I did my stint in the Finnish Defence Forces in mid-1990s, I was explicitly told that I do not salute a/any person, I salute the insignia. Which sounds quite egalitarian in my opinion. The hierarchy is necessary for the overall task to be achieved, as reactions must be fast and operations controlled to the extreme. Some units have to be sacrificed to save a lot more; if that unit can and will refuse, all might be lost. There just isn't time for democracy and discussion. Thus, such hierarchies are not about the person, it is about the job. |
| paulca:
First I think the main reason they want to push "good" people into management, is they are really short on good technically minded managers. But mostly it comes down to the roles they provide on the ladder. From "principle engineer" which I achieved only a year ago after an age as Senior. That in itself was a fiasco. To get promoted I had to set objectives towards key skills and demonstrate at the principle level. However I was contracted full time to a customer as a senior and there was zero room to demonstrate any higher position. I tried to reach out to the team as a facilitator to see how that went and got it thrown back to me that, "Your not senior to us, why would we listen to you, in fact we resent it.", they typically added, "and lets not bullshit, we don't work for Company X, we work for "Customer Y", so your authority if you did have any is moot. My senior at the time, holding the promotion from me said, "Paul, titles don't matter, it's how you work people that promotes you.", when I mentioned this to HR (yes it got that bad), their response was "Tell him to say that when he orders people around without his Senior Delivery Manager title and see how many people tell him to get lost." Role is a triangle. You need the title and the authority to go along with the responsibility. The career ladder, while it is supposed to have tech/non tech split, introduces many "key skills and values" at the next level up, which is Solutions Architect. There you are required to become a stakeholder in the management meetings, to be aware of delivery contracts, commercials etc. In my last 1to1 with management discussing career I pointed out, that from the 4 or 5 items listed as additional responsibilities and skills for architect, only one of them is technical (ownership of larger multi-team / multicomponent solutions), the rest are pseudo management tasks. His response was that the letter of the role is flexible. Going up, will not mean you end up in a desk job. I don't believe him. At the moment I am in a kinda "custom" position, because I stated I do not want to do people management. I can't be technically honest while being people line manager and I don't have good people management skills either. So while normally a "tech lead" on a project would also be the "team leader" and possible "line manager" for people, I am not given the people management role. I don't think they are trying to get rid of me, when they are allowing me to basically, currently, choose my own role. Also, I haven't asked for a pay rise, ever. However I get one every year. I didn't get one this year, but that's because they promoted me and... gave me a £8k rise for that. When I started paid, proper career in 2007 I figured a nice target would be a 2K rise per year. I've averaged more than that. Besides a fair salary, not stellar, but if the company do well and I do well, there is maximum 10% salary bonus. I have received that bonus every year with the company, all 10%. To give you a slightly indication of the culture at the company which actually employee me. The first video call after they had bought the company, the CEO opened the video presentation by introducing the head of people and talent (a fairly fat woman) and saying, "we'd hear from her at the end of the call, she might even sing so we know it's over.". It took me a while, as that joke was not expected at all in a CEO company wide meeting, but, yes, he did make the "its over when the fat lady sings" joke. It's an Irish/UK company. I think I'm safe for a while yet. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |