Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses

Report Shows Another Diversity Challenge: Retaining Employees (sfchronicle.com) 296

An anonymous reader shares a report: Women, blacks and Latinos are far more likely to quit jobs in tech than white or Asian men, according to a new report by the Kapor Center for Social Impact. The Oakland nonprofit commissioned an online survey by the Harris Poll, which asked 2,006 people who voluntarily left tech jobs in the past three years about why they quit. It found women were twice as likely to leave as men (alternative link), while black and Latino tech workers were 3.5 times likelier to quit than white or Asian colleagues. The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Report Shows Another Diversity Challenge: Retaining Employees

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:02PM (#54320671)

    Maybe not. It sounds like a waste of resources.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:02PM (#54320675)

    Let me guess, they were expected to be productive members of the team and not just the token minority, and that got to be too much for them, so they quit rather than be fired for incompetence.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:22PM (#54320815)

      That comment should be modded up. It's correct. It isn't nice to think about, but 'affirmative action' has put a lot of unqualified people into job positions they never deserved, never earned, and often do a horrible job at. This just generates resentment from the qualified people who lost out on the positions, and the co-workers who have to fix the unqualified employees' mistakes, and the customers who have to deal with awful service. Of course unqualified 'affirmative action' hires will feel some heat when everybody else knows all too well that these hires are way more of a burden than a benefit.

      • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:30PM (#54320897)

        Remember: Ego comes first.

        The unqualified never know that they are unqualified. It's just a bunch of meanies, picking on them.

        The worst thing that can happen to office morale is for an incompetent to be promoted and rewarded. I've seen it happen, it's the fastest way to wreck a working team.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Ego comes first...The unqualified never know that they are unqualified. It's just a bunch of meanies [to them], picking on them.

          Heaven forbid if we ever got a president like that.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Maybe they just get fed up with people assuming they are diversity hires, but trusting them, assuming their work will be low quality etc.

        • by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Saturday April 29, 2017 @01:11AM (#54323767)

          And that's one of the big problems of having a "diversity quota" in the first place, you're basically branding anyone "diverse" as a bad worker automatically, even if they're actually good.
          Now if the test is actually equal to everyone and hard enough to filter out the bad workers, well, getting in gets you respect automatically as well because "you survived that hell".

    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      Let me guess, they were expected to be productive members of the team and not just the token minority, and that got to be too much for them, so they quit rather than be fired for incompetence.

      Quoted for visiblity - thats not mere flamebait.

      However, I wonder if the truth lies elsewhere: some people are smart enough to realize how badly the industry in general treats developers, and just pick a better line of work.

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert@slashdoHORS ... minus herbivore> on Friday April 28, 2017 @03:19PM (#54321245) Homepage

      Or due to their minority status they found it easier to get another (better pay/conditions) job at another company who wanted to satisfy their diversity quota.

    • by Nethemas the Great ( 909900 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @03:40PM (#54321411)

      Might I submit for your consideration that you "anonymous coward" might just be the kind of co-worker making people feel mistreated. Labeling people "snowflakes" doesn't exactly demonstrate empathy and solidarity.

      Even "good natured ribbing" can be cruel when the humor isn't shared.

  • Childbirth? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:03PM (#54320689) Journal

    I know it doesn't account for all of it, but I've lost many female co-workers to motherhood and their decision to stay at home with their children.

    • by SeattleLawGuy ( 4561077 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:23PM (#54320829)

      I know it doesn't account for all of it, but I've lost many female co-workers to motherhood and their decision to stay at home with their children.

      "The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment."

      Motherhood is one factor, but I hesitate to go there first because there is still such a problem with harassment in tech. Still, a company can make the job easier for working mothers in a couple of ways (e.g. good maternity leave policy, providing good day care, providing a place and break time for recent mothers to express milk even if they are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, etc...).

      • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:32PM (#54320913)

        Stats are hard to find. Last I saw, fully 50% of 'maternity leave mothers' just take the bene but _never_ come back to work at their old employer.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I have several friends, who were "devout Christian" types, who's wives did just that: took maternity leave pay with no intention of coming back. I tried to explain to them how messed up that was, but none of them understood.

          It is effectively lying. When you leave and plan to never come back, you are quitting for all intents and purposes. Except your employer believes you have not quit, and you are forcing them to pay you money to hold your job. It is stealing through lying and it screws over everyone else.

          • Snotmonkeys have strange effects on parents minds. I wouldn't assume they planned on not coming back, just once they got green shit into their systems, it was hard to walk away from.

          • This is why in civilized societies parental leaves are collectively paid and not directly paid by the employer of the person taking the leave. Why should employers with a 80% female workforce get the burden for the whole society?

            The problem is not that they leave and do not come back. They didn't steal that money. Just like I don't steal my employer when I go on vacation, I earned it. And I am free to quit right after my vacation if I want to, in fact, a lot of people do that.

            • by stdarg ( 456557 )

              Usually vacation time is accrued. Maternity leave isn't, unless there's a token period before all benefits start (like 6 months).

              Not coming back after paid maternity leave would be like asking for future paid vacation up front, and then quitting before you accrue that borrowed time.

              I support maternity and parental leave but I think you're mischaracterizing it here.

          • by e r ( 2847683 )
            You're assuming that "maternity leave" means there's an understanding that you'll come back to the organization. Their understanding of it is that when you have a kid you can go home and raise the kid and the organization will keep sending you paychecks for a certain period and that they also leave the door open for you to come back if you want.

            In order to make traction with them you must convince them that the situation is the former (coming back to work is a mandatory part of taking paid maternity leave
            • In the USA they are required to keep you job (or one just like it) open. There is an expectation that the parent will return.

              Contractors see these, short term, might turn perm, roles all the time.

              If you believe this doesn't affect the job prospects of childbearing age women, I've got a bridge to sell you. But it _should_ affect their job prospects, just like any other real factor. The law be damned.

              • In the USA they are required to keep you job (or one just like it) open. There is an expectation that the parent will return.

                Contractors see these, short term, might turn perm, roles all the time.

                If you believe this doesn't affect the job prospects of childbearing age women, I've got a bridge to sell you. But it _should_ affect their job prospects, just like any other real factor. The law be damned.

                Yup.We had a woman who had three children over a roughly 8 year period. Took off over a year each. We were required to give her he job back.

                That meant that three other women who were working as replacement lost their jobs.

                And it is important, now that we talk about equal pay for equal work. I was quite dependable, and would come in early and work late, work nights and weekends, and travel. If another person of the same job description but only works 6 years out of ten, won't work more than 40 hours a

          • by e r ( 2847683 )
            One more thing: Matthew 20:1-16 [biblegateway.com] may shed some light on this situation:

            Matthew 20:1-16New International Version (NIV) The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard 20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went. “He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ 7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ 8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ 9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius*. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ 13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Footnotes: * A denarius was the usual daily wage of a day laborer.

            You get paid according to the agreement you had with your employer. If you don't like the terms of your employment then you need to renegotiate-- you have no right to complain about what you agreed to.

            • by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @04:28PM (#54321713)

              Erm, the parable is intended to illustrate a point about God and salvation by demonstrating it with a metaphor that the hearer is likely to understand. Jesus is saying that you can be fully saved at any time in your life, even if you aren't working all day - and he is using the local cultural norms of shame and honor to drive it home in a way that it is hard for westerners to really understand.

              Parables are not intended to be applied in reverse. Jesus does not support your non-theological argument just because one of the characters in a story he tells says something similar to what you are saying. It is categorically invalid.

            • An argument for the 'lifetime of sin, deathbed repentance' plan. (Rev LoveJoy to Bart: 'Good plan'.)

              The vineyard owner had better not expect any workers, at all, before 5pm the next day. And he has nobody to blame but himself.

      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @03:43PM (#54321431)

        "The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment."

        Motherhood is one factor, but I hesitate to go there first because there is still such a problem with harassment in tech.

        Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.

        If you dig up the actual report [kaporcenter.org], you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.

        The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians.

        I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.

        • The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians. I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.

          I've always found that sociologists have fascinating data with wacky conclusions that fit their predetermined outcomes.

        • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @08:55PM (#54322979)

          Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the anti-male bias OP was implying exists in these types of reports. That statement from TFA applies to both female and male employees who left their job.

          There is a very strong anti-male bias, even when it is approached in a friendly manner - see below.

          If you dig up the actual report, you'll find that men left due to unfairness/mistreatment more than women - 40% vs 31%. You read the general stat and assumed it indicated a problem with how women are treated, when in fact it's men who more often feel they're mistreated.

          I'm not surprised. I know that in my setting, we had a bit of a bias in hiring women over men, they came in at the same pay as the men, and we promoted them more quickly than men. I voluntarily gave up several promotions in order for a female co worker to get a promotion - stupid quota system with promotions.

          Yet - they all left. Despite preferential treatment, they quit. Getting married, having children, just going back to live with the family were typical. One engineer woman left to become a personal trainer - musta been a helluva hit to the pocket, and another opened a daycare center. Some were let go during slowdowns, in large part because if myself or the other guy were let go, more people would be hired because they usually had a distinct list of what they would or wouldn't do.Travel, Overtime, and non standard work hours were a no-no. One of the biggest problems when there were personnel conflicts? Other women.

          In the end, even though I missed a number of promotions, I was paid a lot more than the others. And there were a few complaints over the years. Quickly taken care of by the boss who asked if they wanted to do what I did. No takers. The actual report makes pretty interesting reading. The stats are all over the place. Women report experiencing or seeing more mistreatment, but reported experiencing stereotyping at roughly the same rate as men (23% vs 24% for minority men vs women, 14% vs 12 % for white/asian men vs women). The rate of unwanted sexual attention is drastically higher in the tech industry than other industries (10% vs 6%), but the rate of unwanted sexual attention reported by women is only slightly higher than by men (10% vs 8%). For bullying and harassment, white/asian women reported a lower incident rate than white/asian men (15% vs 16%). But minority women reported a substantially higher rate than minority men (13% vs 9%). You'll also notice minorities reported a lower harassment rate than whites/asians. I highly recommend reading the actual report if you're curious about this stuff. It doesn't really fit into any of the stereotypes (hah) about male/female or white/asian vs minorities.

    • Re:Childbirth? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:33PM (#54320917)

      I know it doesn't account for all of it, but I've lost many female co-workers to motherhood and their decision to stay at home with their children.

      But that has nothing to do with "tech". If that was the reason, then women would be more likely quit non-tech jobs as well. TFA doesn't address that ... because it is crap journalism written to push an agenda rather than present facts.

      In the broader economy, the progress of women from entry level jobs (where they represent 53%) to mid-level (37%) to senior (26%) is often referred to as a "leaky pipeline", with women more likely to quit at every level and in all industries. Is it worse in tech? I dunno. Some tech-specific numbers would be interesting.

      • by mikael ( 484 )

        Maybe it varies from region to region, but in some areas, a software engineer/programmer only has a lifespan of six years because the competition is so fierce (entry requirements are having a GPA of 7.5+ from a prestigious university and being a team captain on the school competition teams). Everyone is determined to get the most interesting work in order to beef up their portfolio and get onto even bigger more interesting projects or to get a salary large enough to buy a house. Anyone male or female withou

        • GPA of 7.5+

          Is this hyperbole or have they changed the way they calculate GPAs again? In my day 100% = 4.0 and that was it (in colleges at least; apparently high schools by then had decided it is possible to give up to 125% so as to earn a 5.0).

  • The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.

    If that reason is given more often by women and minorities then it is whites and men... perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault.

    It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.

    Being the perennial centrist, on-the-fence person that I am- I don't know which is the real reason.

    • Re:Company's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:12PM (#54320747) Homepage

      White male here.

      Coincidentally, I left my last 2 jobs for the exact same reason (perceived mistreatment). I think it is a 'thing', and not just for protected classes.

      That's why people leave their jobs. Were they expecting to hear, "I just lost interest in my job?"

      No...people don't say that. They blame the job, and those assholes they left behind.

      • What kind of "mistreatment"?

        Personally, I feel mistreated at my current job, and at many of my previous ones too. But the "mistreatment" wasn't (and still isn't) people saying mean things to me, but rather the horrible office environment, which I consider a form of mistreatment. It's within the employer's power to provide a comfortable, quiet office environment that is conducive to knowledge work. So when an employer refuses to do that (citing whatever bullshit excuses), that is tantamount to mistreatmen

    • It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.

      As usual, the article doesn't provide enough details to make an informed decision on the matter.

    • Re:Company's Fault (Score:4, Interesting)

      by slew ( 2918 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:25PM (#54320853)

      The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.

      If that reason is given more often by women and minorities then it is whites and men... perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault.

      It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.

      Being the perennial centrist, on-the-fence person that I am- I don't know which is the real reason.

      Admittedly, I have limited perspective on this, but I often I observe the *company* treatment is probably better for women and under-represented minorities, but the *co-worker* treatment is probably much worse for women and under-represented minorities. True that a part of the *co-worker* treatment is part of the company culture and that part might be the company's responsibility, but you can't make co-workers treat each other non-awkwardly in situations that aren't strictly business related, and that makes the co-worker treatment situation very difficult to fix within a human generation of time.

      I feel that many folks still want companies to function as some sort of in loco parentis as if working a jobs was some sort of extended university stint. That seems like a bit old fashion to me, but I suspect a large number of people feel that since workers are somehow *dependents* of a company, the company owes some responsibility or duty to the employees. Sadly, as in real life not all entities are wired to be parents, even those that actually have children.

      On the other hand workplace norms on overwork demands in the tech business (like many other male dominated industries) are probably not very compelling for some populations and that would be also very difficult to fix within a human generation of time as well. We are long past the "puritan" work ethics that launched our industrial age...

    • perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault

      The company can't force employees to like someone. If there are known incidents, they can perhaps do something, but most "mistreatment" is subtle and/or unrecorded. The organization cannot micromanage social encounters at that level.

      In general, many people are tribal jerks. I've had white colleagues who told about mistreatment when they worked with a uniform non-white group, such as all Asian. The "minority" is oft

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:08PM (#54320725)

    When a White person (or an Asian) gets mistreated, then he just thinks "Man, people are assholes!"

    When a Black or Latino gets mistreated, then he thinks "Man, white people are assholes!"

    When a woman gets mistreated, then she thinks "Woman, men are assholes!"

    In my black, female opinion (I'm transgender and transracial): Only the Whites (and Asians) have the right understanding: People are assholes.

    • If you're in IT, you better be an asshole or nothing will ever get done.

      • If you're in IT, you better be an asshole or nothing will ever get done.

        Not where I work. I've worked places where people got let go for no other reason than being an asshole. (naturally, that isn't how it was worded to them, but everyone knows that that is the real reason).

        • Not where I work. I've worked places where people got let go for no other reason than being an asshole. (naturally, that isn't how it was worded to them, but everyone knows that that is the real reason).

          Assholes that everyone hates should be fired. Assholes who get the job done should be lauded.

          Eli The Computer Guy: Being An "Asshole" As A Technology Professional
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_YaNGzplbE [youtube.com]

      • Anybody that makes you be an asshole, or they won't do their job, is themselves a raging, festering, prolapsed asshole.

        If _every_ boss (assuming your not 18) you've ever had was an asshole, that's you.

        • Anybody that makes you be an asshole, or they won't do their job, is themselves a raging, festering, prolapsed asshole.

          Sometimes you have to be an asshole on purpose to get things done. Especially if a user files an "urgent" ticket and tells you to come back after lunch that would cause the "urgent" ticket to fall out of SLA.. When I worked helpdesk and desktop support, I had the best SLA rate (98.8%) in the department because I didn't tolerate that kind of nonsense.

          If _every_ boss (assuming your not 18) you've ever had was an asshole, that's you.

          The only asshole boss that I ever had lied about his numbers, committed multiple labor violations when he could, and rode the company into bankruptcy before he

          • The person that _makes_ you be an asshole is the king/queen asshole.

            This applies to all relationships. They likely grew up in a family of assholes.

          • Also note: I like the term 'bosshole', started as a slip of the tongue, but when it was pointed out to me, I added it to my vocabulary.

      • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

        If you're in IT, you better be an asshole or nothing will ever get done.

        I've found that results in short-term gains only.
        Eventually your co-workers tend not to like you and don't want to work with you, regardless of whether they "have to" or not. It leads to stress in the office and employee turnover, which leads to more costs and delays.

  • Before the Great Recession, I changed jobs every three years by either staying at the same company or leaving for another company. After the Great Recession, I took whatever job that came my way that lasted anywhere from four hours to years. I'm currently halfway through a five-year contract. Someone leaving at the three-year mark seems normal to me.
  • In my experience, job hoppers are those who have the freedom of options. This would indicate that these folks are more enabled than those stuck behind.

  • by OYAHHH ( 322809 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:36PM (#54320945) Homepage

    On the whole, if you want to see who is most successful in IT just watch who walks out the office's front door at 1am, exhausted, stumbling to their car.

    In a vast majority of cases it will not be the female employees. Invariably they have to leave at 5pm to catch the commuter train, or to pick up the kids, or a million other things.

    Who it will be will be the single man who has no life or a married man who has a strong wife who works as a team with him to fulfill the goals of family.

    That's been my experience. It's just the reality of life. It's not discriminatory. It is to each his own.

    The real problem is that women are of the opinion that career success == life success. That is about as far from reality as you can get.

    Women should consider the ability to hold a job and contribute to their total family as a "Battle Win".

    Then they should look at their long-term ability to have children and raise them well as a "Winning the War."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      There is indeed more social pressure on men to be the bread winners, similar to how women are pressured to look attractive. And thus we'd expect young men to work harder and longer to try to get the promotions. If you are pressured by society to do X, you are more likely to do X.

      It may not be "fair", but that's society as-is. A quota system doesn't factor this in.

    • by Malggi ( 791997 )

      Yeesh, how can you trust someone to prioritize multiple projects on the job when they don't even know to prioritize family over work?

    • Women should consider the ability to hold a job and contribute to their total family as a "Battle Win".

      Then they should look at their long-term ability to have children and raise them well as a "Winning the War."

      Apart from the short period relative to childbirth (possibly longer if you include breastfeeding), why should it be any different for men an women? I mean for the years 1 to 18+ of raising a child?

    • by dabadab ( 126782 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @04:07PM (#54321575)

      if you want to see who is most successful in IT just watch who walks out the office's front door at 1am, exhausted, stumbling to their car.

      To me it does not sound like "successful" more like "loser".

      a married man who has a strong wife who works as a team with him to fulfill the goals of family.

      I would expect one of the goals of the family is to be actually a family - and that does not really work when you get home from work at 1:30, totally exhausted.

      • if you want to see who is most successful in IT just watch who walks out the office's front door at 1am, exhausted, stumbling to their car.

        To me it does not sound like "successful" more like "loser".

        Yup, and for some people, who cannot be bothered to expend any more than a minimum effort, they believe they are the ones who are winning.

        I've seen enough people like that come and go over the years.

        No muchacho, they lost.

        I worked hard, and as needed, and I provided for and raised a family and was involved in my family, and retired at 55 because I did put in the work, and was compensated for it. The people my age who wouldn't allow the place to " take advantage of them" are either still working, and

    • I don't know how things work in IT specifically, but if I see someone stumbling out of the office exhausted at 1AM and a life hasn't been saved, I see a major failure of staffing, or scheduling, or otherwise someone fucking up their job.

  • by taustin ( 171655 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @02:41PM (#54320983) Homepage Journal

    is "Are women and minorities mistreated more often, or are white men more tolerant of being mistreated?"

    Unfortunately, there's no possible way to ask that question that won't produce an hysterical, blind hatred response from pretty much everybody.

    • by Pfhorrest ( 545131 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @04:20PM (#54321669) Homepage Journal

      An important corollary is that even if it is the latter, that doesn't automatically make the less-tolerant-of-mistreatment women and minorities at fault for anything. Just because one group of people are willing to put up with something doesn't make the something okay or another group somehow in the wrong for not putting up with it; maybe the people who put up with bad things don't have the balls to stand up for themselves and wrongly let themselves be pushed over. It's an open question where the line of "too sensitive" vs "not sensitive enough" is, and not an open-and-shut case that more sensitive is bad, no matter how much people who want you to put up with their shit may tell you it is.

      Consider the oft-cited fact(?) that men are tougher salary negotiators. Does that make them "less tolerant of low pay", or "more sensitive about their pay", and is that then a fault? Should we be saying "poor little babies whine for more money and won't just suck it up and accept what they're offered", instead of praising them for confidence and boldness?

    • is "Are women and minorities mistreated more often, or are white men more tolerant of being mistreated?"

      Unfortunately, there's no possible way to ask that question that won't produce an hysterical, blind hatred response from pretty much everybody.

      Let's try this one.

      It's possible either through basic expectations, or being sold a bill of goods, that many women are convinced both that they can have it all, and that the workplace is a place of fulfillment and happiness.

      And yet, none of us actually has it all. I had as much as I could, but juggling a family life and professionalism, I really had to juggle my schedule, and work a lot of extra hours.

      And just as a personal observation, so many women came into the workplace looking at it as a sprin

    • by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Saturday April 29, 2017 @12:51AM (#54323733) Homepage

      If you look at the actual report [kaporcenter.org], you can see that men actually report leaving jobs due to unfairness more often than women. There are a lot of patterns shown in the report that aren't reflected accurately in the summary.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They treat everyone like shit :(

  • The same as the manager thays been there for 20 years does not count as mistreatment.

  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @03:33PM (#54321347)
    My Ex is a very competent programmer/manager and I know a number of very competent female programmers. Good female developers put in the same number of hours as men married men and maybe even more. Harassment from male engineers is almost non-existent with one exception.

    Institutional stupidity and harassment towards women occasionally happens. There still are some senior managers that will promote a man over a woman and some companies are clueless when it comes to pregnancy or bathroom availability.

    The biggest problem by far that I have seen is harassment by other women. And I've seen it at every single company I've worked at. Women will back stab each other and withhold key information. Secretaries are passive aggressive to female engineers, will refuse or be late with simple but critical tasks to other women, short change other women in petty ways like giving them the noisy office, saving $20 on a flight by choosing the flight with 2 extra stops,etc. If a woman gives the same instruction a man would give a woman in the exact same way the woman receiving the order will be resentful. Woman have to be friends and show they are a team or some bullshit like that and then make their orders requests. And women are expected to put up with this crap and not make a big thing about it. This last point is the exception. If the secretary was passive aggressive to a male engineer he could complain and at least get a sympathetic hearing of his complaint. If a woman complains then the problem is the women in the office not getting along.
  • by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Friday April 28, 2017 @04:04PM (#54321539)

    If Blacks, Latinos, and Women don't want to work in tech, what's the big deal? Why do we need to socially engineer that industry? Why don't we have the same concerns about primary teachers or nursing?

  • but I know why most of the women in my area of expertise tend to leave the workforce....they get married and have kids. Its that simple.

    This is with STEM, where if you leave regardless of gender it's going to be tough coming back because you are going to be out of date/rusty/lack of relevant experience/ ect. It's not easy to just jump back into the same programming job after 3-5 years of being out of the loop.

    Not that most of the ones I know wanted to go back even after 3-5 years when the kids got old enoug

  • We're all mistreated and we mistreat each other.

    First - there's the serious mistreatment. I.T. is treated like a pariah at many companies. We are an expense, and we are an expense that many companies have a difficult time grasping. "We send the plumber away after he fixes the toilet, why do we have this guy on the payroll after he fixed my printing issue?" Bean counters especially hate us, because the things we support and provide to the users are expensive. I don't care who the computer is for, I.T. i

  • The Pakistani guy at my office smells, and the way he talks makes me feel really uncomfortable. Of course if I ever uttered any of this in meatspace, I'd be publicly branded as "culturally insensitive". It's not that I don't appreciate Pakistani culture, it's just that the guy really does smell something fierce. He's a nice enough fellow but I mean, come on, take a bath once in a while. And use soap. I can't imagine where he came from, what conditions he lived in, but he's here now. He's got a house, and th

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)

Working...