Slashdot Mirror

The problem is that this anonymisation removes the inherent unconscious bias that leads to women getting better outcomes than men.

The Australian study basically says, "Don't use blind recruitment because it removes a disadvantage from men":
https://pmc.gov.au/resource-ce...

Another company says they found no statistically significant difference - but even though they were trying to eliminate bias against women, men did better as a result of their gender being hidden: http://blog.interviewing.io/we...

So no, Google wont anonymise. It'd give them actual equality of opportunity and they appear not to want that at all.

If only the link he shared had included somewhere within those 250 words a hyperlink to the department that did the study, taking the competent reader to a page that doesn't just give you direct access to the full writeup, but also summarises it and offers you downloads in multiple document formats.

If only.

( https://pmc.gov.au/resource-ce... if you were too lazy to check)

On the other hand, there is abundant evidence across all sectors that simply changing the name on a resume to a female sounding name or to a black sounding name reduces the number of callbacks you receive on that resume

This isn't "all sectors" though, this is the IT industry. In this industry, the evidence suggests recruitment outcomes are better for women. e.g.
http://blog.interviewing.io/we...

Not just the IT industry either:
https://pmc.gov.au/sites/defau...

. Women and people of color are less likely to be promoted, to earn similar pay

You have evidence for this? I have evidence that suggests otherwise:
http://media.dice.com/report/m...

Forget black people being shot by police, forget the massive pay and gender gaps in the workplace, forget every real challenge facing the world

Oh no! A population group is demanding the very fucking same equality that everybody else is demanding and suddenly it's wrong?

By the way, there are no massive fucking pay gaps in the workplace and I really can't be arsed providing links to the 78 studies that demonstrate this so you'll just have to take my word on it - or try actually showing some fucking evidence of your own instead of a hate filled sexist racist rant.

No wonder you found the entire document objectionable, it challenged your bigotry.

No numbers in your 'study', not even percentages

That you're too blind to read is not my fault.
Quoting the linked page:

"The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door. "

and it's maybe 250 words.

Your ability to estimate is terrible too. Removing the colophon, all headers, key points and captions, the text is 469 words.

And if that's not enough for you, that you're too lazy to follow a link is not my fault either.
It links to the study as the only text link, so it should not have been hard to find.

Your article is a textbook example of garbage "journalism" and apologism.

Any data disagreeing with your cemented views is garbage and any publishing of it apologism?

Except that's fucking bullshit. Until there are blind resume reviews and tests, the myth of the meritocracy is just so-much garbage spouted by people that are worried they'll lose their jobs to someone ACTUALLY qualified.

I'm not aware of the breadth of literature on the topic, but there was a study from Australia from just this year that found that using blind resumes had worse results for women then if information about the candidates sex was available. I also recall a study I read some time ago that found large levels of discrimination against job (or it may have been for apartment applications, but the idea is still generally the same) applicants with names that are typically associated with black people. For example Jamal vs. James.

Personally I think resumes should be blind as it does limit bias. You'd probably want to go just beyond name, race, and gender though as there are some colleges that essentially give that information away or perhaps create other types of bias. Sure you'll eventually have to bring in some candidates for an in person interview, but I think at that point it's a lot harder for people, even those who are racist, to fall back on prejudices when they're dealing with an actual individual who probably doesn't conform to their notions. I'm reminded of the story of one black man who has probably gotten more people to leave the KKK than the untold thousands that just insult them on the internet. All he did was go and talk with them and try to be their friends. If you can get people who joined a white nationalist movement to quit just by meeting them in person and interacting with them for a while, I think you can probably overcome any slight racism that a hiring manager might have as well.

Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

from here

And if you really want to laugh, read this:

24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
[...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

Right ...

From what I understand, it is the politicians who are at risk of punishments for communicating with unregistered lobbyists. Charges of corruption (possible fines and imprisonment) and loss of their jobs are some of the potential risks they face by communicating with unregistered lobbyists. On a similar note, there has been a recent scandal in NSW regarding prohibited donors and the current state government. They have had 4.4 million dollars in campaign funding rescinded due to this breach.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mike-bairds-frankenstein-moment-commission-turns-on-the-nsw-liberals-over-donations-scandal-20160323-gnq08v

Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

from here

And if you really want to laugh, read this:

24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
[...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

Right ...

From what I understand, it is the politicians who are at risk of punishments for communicating with unregistered lobbyists. Charges of corruption (possible fines and imprisonment) and loss of their jobs are some of the potential risks they face by communicating with unregistered lobbyists. On a similar note, there has been a recent scandal in NSW regarding prohibited donors and the current state government. They have had 4.4 million dollars in campaign funding rescinded due to this breach.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mike-bairds-frankenstein-moment-commission-turns-on-the-nsw-liberals-over-donations-scandal-20160323-gnq08v

Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

from here

And if you really want to laugh, read this:

24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
[...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

Right ...

From what I understand, it is the politicians who are at risk of punishments for communicating with unregistered lobbyists. Charges of corruption (possible fines and imprisonment) and loss of their jobs are some of the potential risks they face by communicating with unregistered lobbyists. On a similar note, there has been a recent scandal in NSW regarding prohibited donors and the current state government. They have had 4.4 million dollars in campaign funding rescinded due to this breach.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/mike-bairds-frankenstein-moment-commission-turns-on-the-nsw-liberals-over-donations-scandal-20160323-gnq08v

Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

from here

And if you really want to laugh, read this:

24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
[...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

Right ...

Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

from here

And if you really want to laugh, read this:

24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
[...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

Right ...

Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.

But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.

Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.

Secondly, any and all meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be published in a very timely fashion. (No more than a month later.) None of this:

Lobbyists are required to update their details as they change and to confirm that their details are up to date within 10 business days of 31 January each year. Lobbyists are also required to confirm that their details are up to date and provide statutory declarations for all persons employed, contracted or otherwise engaged by the lobbyist to carry out lobbying activities on behalf of a client within 10 business days of 30 June each year.

from here

And if you really want to laugh, read this:

24. What will happen if a lobbyist fails to confirm that his or her details are up to date as required by clauses 5.5 and 5.6 of the Code?
[...] A lobbyist who does not confirm that his or her details are up to date within the period specified in clauses 5.5 and 5.6 may be removed from the Register. [...]

Right ...

Someone accidentally modded this 'Insightful' instead of 'ROTFLMAO'.

There is actually a register of lobbyists.

And we have just as many names for bribes as anyone else.