Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blames Layoffs For Drop In Female Employees (cio.com)
itwbennett writes: This year, women made up 26.8 percent of Microsoft's total workforce, down from 29 percent in 2014, the company reported Monday. In a blog post discussing the numbers, Gwen Houston, Microsoft's general manager of diversity and inclusion, pointed the finger at the thousands of layoffs the company made to restructure its phone hardware business: 'The workforce reductions resulting from the restructure of our phone hardware business ... impacted factory and production facilities outside the U.S. that produce handsets and hardware, and a higher percentage of those jobs were held by women,' she said.
This place is getting worst than Tumblr.
Who fucking cares al-fucking-ready?
If women want a STEM career they will get one. Clearly they don't want them. Stop trying to artificially equalize something that has no natural desire to be equal!
Where is all of the outcry about males being less than 10% of the nursing field in the US? https://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupations.pdf
The useless employees were disproportionately female.
It's a little more subtle.
- Microsoft bought Nokia
- Nokia was a company that was much more enlightened than Microsoft, and actually had some female employees
- Now Microsoft is canning a bunch of those people
And so - the layoffs are disproportionally female compared to *Microsoft* standards, not compared to Nokia standards, and not compared to other sane companies.
OMFG! There was a fluctuation of 2.2 percent in the female employees of a major corporation that has bizzilions of employees that come and go!
No, it was because they cancelled the phone business.
<sexist sarcasm humor> Clearly since they aren't working on phones any more, they don't need the women. They must have used the women to QA those phones so receptionists and secretaries would be satisfied with the phone's shape and comfort on the female face. Now that the phone division is closed they don't need the women any more. </sexist sarcasm humor>
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Your advice is rejected for the following reasons:
[x] It makes too much sense
[x] It is politically incorrect
[x] It has been tried before
Seriously, if a massive layoff occurs in the construction field, the vast majority of those affected will be male. If a massive layoff occurs in the nursing field, the mast majority of those affected will be female. The underlying problem is that people continue to conflate equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The larger the corporation, and the less turnover it has in general, the more significant a small number is. If there are 49 employees, a 2.2% fluctuation is someone quitting. If there were 2 million employees, with say, 20% layoffs, that a 2.2% reduction between gender groups is extremely significant (p
Your ad here. Ask me how!
and yet everyone here is complaining that this article even exist, yet are happy to ignore that this means hardly any women hold senior positions at Microsoft, and a huge amount of their female work force basically worked the lowest level jobs. Glass ceiling, anyone?
FTFA
Microsoft's uppermost management ranks have become more racially diverse, with African-Americans making up 2.9 percent of corporate vice presidents, compared to 1.3 percent a year ago. That's likely only a few people, but it's a sign of progress at the top. Microsoft's senior leadership team is now 27.2 percent women, which is the greatest representation of women in that role in the company's history.
The moral of the story is, as usual, that upper management is more likely to survive the cuts. While employment of women overall went down, management beat the trend ... and that you should RTFA before commenting.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Excuse me, but what I expect from corporations (where I am not myself a shareholder) is quality products. I don't give a damn, who they hire and why — as long as they don't enslave workers — and neither should anybody else. Mind your own business, people.
Maybe you don't give a damn about your fellow human beings but those of us who aren't sociopaths do. I want to see people get good opportunities and not be held down because they happened to be born with a different set of genitals or a different skin color. Glass ceilings are a real thing. Clearly you've never seen anyone bump into one but I have. These are real issues that affect real people and in a civilized society we care about what happens to them. People don't have to be enslaved for a workplace to be a very bad place.
We have certain protected classes of people (gender, race, age, etc) precisely because there is clear and unambiguous evidence that if we allow discrimination based on those criteria that the results are bad both for society and for the individuals. The market demonstrably cannot fairly deal with this problem.
Maybe that title exists because qualified women were being overlooked thanks to the old boys network?
This could easily be seen as trying to get better quality workers without prematurely culling half the herd because of their gender. Nothing SJW there - just sound business sense - if you want to hire the best, you use the largest pool of candidates to draw from. Or do you think that no woman can't be better at a job than a man?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
the company hires and retains top talent...regardless of their fucking gender or ethnicity.
"top talent" is a code word for rich white people
Wouldn't be the first time my ideas have been rejected. But it won't stop me from trying :-)
Creating mountains from molehills is how these positions are created (director of diversity, etc).
Why do you think that womens studies majors and culture critics majors and media studies majors are so obnoxiously loud about every retarded little invented thing? Because they have to gin-up their own business. They have to create outrages that only they are qualified to fix for your business, organization, or institution. Otherwise they have literally no employable skills whatsoever.
FreeBSD has FreeBSD girl aka Randi Harper https://twitter.com/freebsdgir...
She is not only a woman but an awful SJW attacker. FreeBSD's support of her cause in many discussion list entries is what caused my business to stop our annual donations and migrate >5k hosts over to Linux. Won't disclose the donation amount because that would likely make me identifiable
I don't blame you. I just googled her and she is pretty terrifying, cold, and heartless.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
I skipped on the article and started on the list of her victims. Most of those people are people that I'd consider left leaning, but I would not wish what she did on them or anyone. She really has no problem destroying anyone even those that mainly agree with her.
I work in a division where the gender population across the tech folks is 50/50 There is still an open position so depending who we fill in that roll will make the determining factor. However I work in health care, that industry will naturally attract a higher female group.
However in terms of looking at rolls to fill and the people who apply I find the following trends.
Male Tech workers: Focus a lot on the technology, they like to build and create, when there is a problem they will jump in and tackle it. When there is a development job they will be the first to volunteer.
Female Tech workers: Focus on the people, they are more likely to dig into a problem and find where it went wrong, offer suggestions on how to make a product better, and work with others to find what the ideal solution would be.
Working in a hospital we need a good mix of both, however if you are working in a place that builds software far more men will be attracted to that type of work.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
While correlation is not causation, it's a statsitically significant difference. Therefore, there is something separating those groups. It could be a confound (for instance, maybe the layoffs were limited to those with PhDs, and more women at MS had PhDs), but the test for "is the size of the delta worth talking about" passed.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
"top talent" is a code word for rich white people
"$TERM is a code word for rich white people" is a code phrase for "I'm too lazy to actually debate the case on its merits, so I'll just create an intentionally flawed argument and pretend like you said it."
Not that there's not a bunch of racist sexist elitist assholes in the world, but you don't get to just glibly dismiss their points and pretend like you've won the argument. Well, I mean, you absolutely can do that, but it doesn't really count.
No - all it means is get the right person for the job. Gender and ethnicity are absolutely meaningless when evaluating skill. If the most qualified person happens to be an Indian female then, by all means, hire her. But the fact that she is female and Indian should in no way give her "bonus points" in the evaluation.
I hire technical people all the time. If you can write code and get along with people then you're in. I could not give a rats ass whether that person is male or female or white or black or asian or whatever. I hire based on skill and aptitude.
Quotas are, by definition, racist and sexist. Quotas, by definition, give preference to one group over another and do not take skill into account.
If top talent is a code word for anything it is fairness.
Nokia was a company that was much more enlightened than Microsoft, and actually had some female employees
They also had a factory. They didn't have more female programmers, just more female factory workers. Microsoft purchased them then fired most of the factory workers.
I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit! I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.
Everyone has the same opportunity.
No they do not. You have to be phenomenally clueless or bigoted to think otherwise. The same opportunities are NOT available to everyone. That was the entire point of the civil rights movement and the suffrage movement. Just because you have some choices doesn't mean everyone else does. Opportunity can be taken away very easily by institutions (government and private) if we allow it to occur. Opportunity is a fragile thing and not everyone gets equal opportunity under the law or in society. Bigotry, racism, and sexism and discrimination are real things with real consequences. Those who have to actually face them by definition do not have equal opportunity. The fact that some people manage to break through does not mean that the gap in opportunity is not real for many many people.
For example, I become a developer; not a cake baker. That doesn't mean I didn't have equal opportunity to become a cake baker. It means that I fucking chose to be something else.
Wow do you not get it. If everything is so equal as you claim then why do we see non-white people incarcerated at disproportionate rates? Why do we see older people having trouble getting tech jobs even when they are well qualified for them? Why do we see a congress that doesn't even begin to resemble the demographics of the country? You think because you chose one job over another that there is no inequality in the real world? That's just ignorant as hell.
That seems so drastic, it is unbelievable...
Wow, didn't know about her. Well, I think, you can go back now — randi@ has not committed anything (to src/) since 2010... Which brings us back to my point — your concern with a software project ought to be first and foremost on the quality of the product.
But, maybe, she works for Microsoft now?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Heh, we've reached the point where I'm not sure if this is actual trolling. I have one nitpick:
and extend unemployment to deal with the loss of jobs for some it will cause.
That will never happen. If the male gender is what's on your birth certificate, you are expendable.
The problem with these kinds of articles I see is that painting male tech workers as a bunch of sexually frustrated misogynerds (no idea if that's what TFA does) is going to turn women off to the idea of majoring in CS. Hell, it's scaring me out of tech!
Furthermore, focusing on the state of the industry is putting the cart before the horse. We could implement your modest proposal tomorrow, and companies would never be able to comply in two years. The problem is that I need to start seeing which ever demographics we need for "diversity" in classrooms.
This is an example of one of the problems with social justice bullies I outlined above: they keep missing the target!
Figure out why women are not choosing STEM majors. Start at the elementary school level. From what I've been reading here and on the red site, mostly from commenters, the problem at the elementary and middle school level (K-8) seems to be solving itself. Then figure out whether or not differences in high school demographic groups even need to be addressed. (They're teenagers, after all.) Then, finally, figure out why women choose non-STEM degrees.
Once we start seeing whatever diversity target statistics we need in graduates, then and only then can we even begin to think about implementing your modest proposal.
Here's the danger: without diversity in graduates, that leaves companies in a quandary that will inevitably lead to the "diversity hire" problem, which, as we know, makes everything all the worse for everybody.
Ah but hell, maybe that's what the Illuminati want. Still, original point stands. The Illuminati (TPTB, Masters of the Universe, call them whatever) have figured out that nobody cares when an assigned male is left starving and homeless by failed economic policy.
No I am saying different genders will gravitate towards different jobs. Towing more women at a job to meet a quota even if that isn't what they want to do, will just cause a higher level of turn over. However as I stated before this is a trend, not a rule. Like any trend there are exceptions... A lot of one, a Trend can mean 51% of a population will fall in such a category (assuming I have a low margin of error) meaning 49% will fall in the minority. 49% is a big minority.
There are a lot of talented women who are just as good if not better then men at the building and creating of technology, if that is what they want to do, we shouldn't say they can't because of their gender. However if there is a balance in the stereotypes and you find your organization isn't having the gender equity, then there is a problem with the organization which will need to be corrected, such as fostering values that will attract women stereotype tech workers to your field, as they will bring something the organization needs anyways.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Hire people to make sammitches for all the other employees. That should drive the female employee rate way up!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's not a "blow up sheep", it's a "Love Ewe", thank you very much! https://muttonbone.com/
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's not a "blow up sheep", it's a "Love Ewe", thank you very much! https://muttonbone.com/ [muttonbone.com]
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
...is that the company they bought (ie. Nokia) did a far better job of hiring women in their offices around the world than Microsoft does in America, and thus when they went ahead and starting laying off the ex-Nokia employees that was enough to make a multi-percentage difference in employee gender composition? That doesn't really seem to let Microsoft off at all, it just changes the rote details of what they're on the hook for.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Quotas may be justified as a court-ordered remedial measure to address an identified pattern of discrimination, meaning they should be limited in time. So there are limited valid applications for quotas, although in general I agree with your assertion that quotas are bullshit -- any company not hiring the best people for the position is hurting themselves, discrimination is a self-punishing transgression.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I just think that there are a lot of variables that contribute towards a given representation. For example, if a company gets 25 applications for a series of positions and 20 of them are men does that mean that they should hire equal number men and women to fill those positions? Maybe there were not enough women qualified, or even interested.
Sure, if there are valid and provable discrimination then a limited remedy might be appropriate. But throwing a big wet blanket over the whole thing just doesn't seem well thought out to me.
Imagine what hospitals and doctors offices would be like, they would have to find men to work as nurses!
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Breitbart is not a reliable source of information on this matter.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Or is it that Finnish women are more capable?
Nobody cares, apk. Do you have a script that just posts this junk whenever Coren posts?
Same AC that posted the sibling comment. (Well, I guess I'm not AC any more!)
The evidence is conflicting. All I'm able to find is hearsay. Would you please provide evidence that Randi is trans?
Here's where I display a bit of bigotry. If she's not trans, I don't give a fuck about her. Being a woman does not preclude one from being an asshole. Brianna Wu is a woman who is an asshole, but I single her out because she is trans. I am very uncomfortable with what such a troll as that asshole can do to all trans women. I was shocked at the deluge of ACs misgendering Wu during the interview threads.
I think Brianna Wu and Randi here can die in a fire, regardless of cis- this or trans- that. I single out Wu because I wish 1.) she would be honest about her history and not go "eww, why would I want to hang out with a bunch of transsexuals?" I get her sentiment--I even agree that in a perfect world, no, we wouldn't need trans- this and cis- that. I don't live in that world, and neither does that bitch. 2.) she would shut up with her lies and bullshit. I've noticed backlash against transgendered people I have never observed before in the past few years. Wu and her ilk are the cause of it.
To be clear: being a woman or being trans does not put one above reproach or above being an asshole. However, being trans was beginning to be tentatively accepted by the mainstream. Then came Obamacare. Then came anti-gamergate. I feel assholes like Wu (and Randi here if you can provide proof) need to be publicly outed and denounced by trans women at large, as much as I would normally find the outing of a trans woman abhorrent.
Interesting times call for interesting measures, I guess. I'm just trying to be practical. Feel free to flame me here.
Breitbart is not a reliable source of information on this matter.
Why? Either way, the Breitbart article is full for references. If you think you're getting a slanted version of the story, just check the references. The facts are there to be had for those who care to look.
I can see you, lmao, holding the camera shooting a Pr0N flick or something
On an odd sidenote, I might actually do this. I have been wanting a pr0n flick that had some actual plot, possibly a gender change at some point, consensual of course. There are many themes to explore here. I hate this plague of non-consensual gender (and species!) changes that has established itself in the TF community.
In a footnote, I would like to note that I find your hosts file admirable.
"Excuse me, but what I expect from corporations (where I am not myself a shareholder) is quality products. I don't give a damn, who they hire and why â" as long as they don't enslave workers â" and neither should anybody else"
Wrong, wrong, utterly wrong.
Corporations are corporations because of their Corporate Charter which is to be approved by the State Government. Since the State Government is the civil servant of the State's people, there you have everybody having their damn about what a corporation does and how from its very inception.
You expect from corporations "just quality products" and that's all well and good, but others may expect corporations also to support their local societies and to promote their local values or go making business anywhere else and that's also as good a position as your own.
False. Registering a corporation is not a privilege — it is a right. I don't need your approval to create one. My registration merely informs you, that I intend to do business as a corporation.
False. The only legal mechanism, through which our nosy government pretending to serve the busybody you can justify its interest in the corporation's internal practices, is through non-discrimination and workplace safety regulations.
And my point is, such expectations are stupid, misplaced, and counterproductive.
When choosing a new TV-set, are you going to say: sure, Foo's TVs suck and are more expensive than Bar's, but I'm going to buy one anyway, because Foo, Inc. is hiring more women than Bar, Inc.? Seriously?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You know she was never connected to FreeBSD in any official capacity. She helped organise the meetbsd conference, but that's it. She worked for Yahoo at one point but was sacked for under-performance, and she's been a professional SJW ever since as far as I can tell.
Against my better judgement, I am going to comment instead of modding you down for trolling in your signature.
The nursing profession has been trying to attract more males for decades. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that having physically stronger people around can help a lot with immobile patients.
My signature is a response to a trolling campaign, if you want to down mod me for it, so be it, it doesn't much matter to me. I tried to have an adult conversation with him, and discuss issues I saw in his advertising, and with his actual product. All I have gotten in response is this on every post I make:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
He has stopped this week, but it doesn't change the behavior. I have responded to every one of his points, and demonstrated my side with evidence, but yet I still get trolled massively. APK isn't interested in correcting his mistakes, he won't even admit that he ever makes any. Instead, the only thing he is interested is beating people down until they admit defeat. As I will never do so, I instead have taken to inciting his reaction in the hopes that someone at Dice will notice and block his connection proxying that allows him to post 100s of times in a day when a registered user can only post 50 times. If you think that makes me a troll, that is fine. Most of the responses I get (that aren't APK faking agreeing with himself) are positive, so I won't stop just because some think I am a troll, as it isn't hurting my Karma yet.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
As far as the nursing profession, I am simply giving an example, there are many fields just like it, and there are many fields that no one talks about the gender imbalance in. But when it comes to STEM, we must fix the imbalance, despite all the evidence pointing at women not being interested in the types of jobs STEM offers. Women tend to gravitate to jobs involving socialization, and there is nothing wrong with that. Men tend to gravitate to jobs involving isolation, and there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to force or trick women into moving into STEM is the height of sexism, and this is what I am challenging. The reason I say it is sexist is quite simple, aren't women capable of choosing their careers just as much as men? So perhaps they are choosing to not work in these fields, so why all this effort to push them where they apparently already feel like they don't need to be.
(split post as the combination somehow tripped the lameness filter...I wish I knew why)
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Microsoft has exceptionaly high turnover. It doesn't fit the standard curve.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You forgot about something here. If all jobs have to be 50/50 there will be a shitload of nurses put out of work as well, so there would be extended unemployment, probably through WICK so that men could not access it, but it would exist.