Sixth miner dies while advisory committee fails to meet because of gender quotas

[prideandfall]

First, I did not say 'incompetent'. I've said, and I defend, that if your search for talent is restricted to a single gender, it is mathematically certain that you will make worse recruitment decisions on average.

"on average" - ok sure, let's assume that as true for the sake of discussion. "on average" does not mean "in this case", and so "on average" has functionally zero relevance to the exact situation that you're trying to use as a justification for trying to blame governmental corruption on the "evils of feminism".

Second, it is mathematically certain that searching amongst women only for people competent and qualified to be on a mining advisory board is more likely to return two incompetent people than searching without a pre-determined gender restriction.

no, it isn't mathematically certain. the random factor of human incompetence and cronyism wildly skews the data sample to the point where it's nearly impossible to model, and that's not even including the fact that it's a government position which brings at least another 20 randomizing factors.

Finally, you assume implicitly that the talent, experience, and desire to sit on a government mining advisory board is distributed equally between the genders. You have no evidence of any such thing.

except for the fact that the article clearly states that the QRC offered up candidates who presumably fit that criteria and the queensland mining agency did literally nothing.

now, if you can find any single shred of evidence that the two candidates proposed by the QRC were either ridiculously unqualified or were clearly cronies (which given that it's QRC i wouldn't find unbelievable) OR find any single shred of evidence that there were a backlog of qualified non-shill male candidates proposed but rejected, you might have a point.

 

[Metaphor]

"on average" - ok sure, let's assume that as true for the sake of discussion.

It's not true for the sake of discussion. It's true.

"on average" does not mean "in this case", and so "on average" has functionally zero relevance to the exact situation that you're trying to use as a justification for trying to blame governmental corruption on the "evils of feminism".

Governmental corruption? What?

no, it isn't mathematically certain. the random factor of human incompetence and cronyism wildly skews the data sample to the point where it's nearly impossible to model, and that's not even including the fact that it's a government position which brings at least another 20 randomizing factors.

It's mathematically certain. If you sample two distributions that are identical, to find the highest value, but you can only choose the highest sample from one of the distributions, you will get a lower number than you could have, on average, than if you had been able to keep the highest sample from either distribution.

now, if you can find any single shred of evidence that the two candidates proposed by the QRC were either ridiculously unqualified or were clearly cronies (which given that it's QRC i wouldn't find unbelievable) OR find any single shred of evidence that there were a backlog of qualified non-shill male candidates proposed but rejected, you might have a point.

I don't think anybody would be recommended who was ridiculously unqualified. I'm sure they were not the untalented children of celebrities.

To have a 50-50 quota has an unspoken assumption that the background talent, desire and interest to be on a mining advisory board is equally distributed between men and women. Nobody has adduced any such evidence, and the demographics of the labour market in the mining industry speaks directly against the assumption.

 

[prideandfall]

It's not true for the sake of discussion. It's true.

yeah... except for the part where it isn't.

Governmental corruption? What?

gender quota? what?

It's mathematically certain.

no, no it isn't. i'm not sure if you're grievously misunderstanding what "mathematical certainty" means or if you're just being hyperbolic.

If you sample two distributions that are identical, to find the highest value, but you can only choose the highest sample from one of the distributions, you will get a lower number than you could have, on average, than if you had been able to keep the highest sample from either distribution.

except that this case isn't about two distributions that are identical, nor are the values within those distributions consistent from sample to sample, nor are the minimum or maximum value for either distribution standardized or controllable.

you're acting like there's 2 tables with a preset data range:
table man is 3 to 8
table woman is 1 to 6
you're trying to argue that forcing a distribution model to include 'table woman' will result in lower outcomes on average because the score is lower.
the truth is that the 2 tables are more like this:
table man is 1 to 5
table woman is 1 to 5

your argument is founded on the underlying principle that the 'table man' will always have a higher net result than table woman.
if we were talking about how much they could bench press or average bladder capacity i'd probably agree with you, but "qualifications to be a member of a governmental agency providing advisement at the federal level regarding policies and practices relating to safety regulations in mining operations" doesn't fall under that category.

To have a 50-50 quota has an unspoken assumption that the background talent, desire and interest to be on a mining advisory board is equally distributed between men and women. Nobody has adduced any such evidence, and the demographics of the labour market in the mining industry speaks directly against the assumption.

now on this point in the abstract i actually agree with you, but unfortunately it's not relevant to the question of whether or not a governmental agency providing advisement at the federal level regarding policies and practices relating to safety regulations in mining operations received 2 applicants 6 months ago that met a minimum standard of qualifications such that it allowed for the continued operation of the agency in its entirety.

considering that for the purposes of the agency being able to exist at all required just putting a ham sandwich with a vagina drawn on it in marker sitting in an office chair, i'm going to go ahead and give the point to a logical assumption that somebody at some level of the government was being an obstinate fuckwit who bureaucratically shitboxed a government agency rather than comply with a policy, rather than assume that there aren't 2 women in all of queensland who could hack a federal job on a mining safety committee.

 

[Metaphor]

gender quota? what?

Are you suggesting gender quotas on government boards are a sign of government corruption? I think it's bad policy but I don't think it's corrupt.

no, no it isn't. i'm not sure if you're grievously misunderstanding what "mathematical certainty" means or if you're just being hyperbolic.

It's certain.

except that this case isn't about two distributions that are identical, nor are the values within those distributions consistent from sample to sample, nor are the minimum or maximum value for either distribution standardized or controllable.

So...the talent pool for being on a mining advisory board isn't equally distributed between men and women?

Fascinating. Please tell me, which gender has more talent, if the distributions are different?

you're acting like there's 2 tables with a preset data range:
table man is 3 to 8
table woman is 1 to 6
you're trying to argue that forcing a distribution model to include 'table woman' will result in lower outcomes on average because the score is lower.
the truth is that the 2 tables are more like this:
table man is 1 to 5
table woman is 1 to 5

I don't know what table people are, but if you are selecting for talent, you would select all the 8s in the population, then, if there's room left, all the 7s, and so on.

your argument is founded on the underlying principle that the 'table man' will always have a higher net result than table woman.

No, I'm saying pick the most talented person or persons whenever an opening comes up.

if we were talking about how much they could bench press or average bladder capacity i'd probably agree with you, but "qualifications to be a member of a governmental agency providing advisement at the federal level regarding policies and practices relating to safety regulations in mining operations" doesn't fall under that category.

Advisory boards are usually drawn from people with experience in an industry. Do you know much about the mining industry, like what the numbers of men and women are in it?

now on this point in the abstract i actually agree with you, but unfortunately it's not relevant to the question of whether or not a governmental agency providing advisement at the federal level regarding policies and practices relating to safety regulations in mining operations received 2 applicants 6 months ago that met a minimum standard of qualifications such that it allowed for the continued operation of the agency in its entirety..

Boards shouldn't take people who meet the minimum standard if there are people who are better than the minimum standard.

In the Australian Public Service, you can be rated 'Suitable' for a position. You can also be rated 'Highly Suitable' or "Very Suitable' (that's above 'highly').

The person rated Very Suitable should be offered the position, even if the person rated Suitable could do it.

considering that for the purposes of the agency being able to exist at all required just putting a ham sandwich with a vagina drawn on it in marker sitting in an office chair, i'm going to go ahead and give the point to a logical assumption that somebody at some level of the government was being an obstinate fuckwit who bureaucratically shitboxed a government agency rather than comply with a policy, rather than assume that there aren't 2 women in all of queensland who could hack a federal job on a mining safety committee.

Um...okay.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This thread does seem to be a weird bit of fearmongering.

 

[Gun Nut]

Gender equity is different than gender equality. Rarely are all things equal. The goal is being equitable.
In this case, how many people in the mining industry as a whole are female? I found an article that says that 11% of the mining industry in South Africa is female... but couldn't find more global or any other regional data (but I didn't try hard). How many people make up this board? If less than 10, then one would not expect a woman to be present... statistically.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No, that isn't the point.

I agree the government is incompetent, for having such a policy in the first place.

It is sad that the mining industry in Australia needs a committee to advise it on avoiding unnecessary deaths. Why can't the mining industry do the right thing on it's own initiative? How come it is the government that is judged incompetent and not the people running the mines?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The free market will see to the miners safety.

 

[Jarhyn]

Reading this, they nominated enough people to the board to avoid this problem. It looks like the people who selected from the nominations so as to not satisfy the requirements for the board bear the sum total of responsibility here, not the people who put in the regulation.

If you have a requirement tondo a thing and you don't do it, and as a result people die, YOU are at fault for shirking.

 

[Arctish]

Gender equity is different than gender equality. Rarely are all things equal. The goal is being equitable.
In this case, how many people in the mining industry as a whole are female? I found an article that says that 11% of the mining industry in South Africa is female... but couldn't find more global or any other regional data (but I didn't try hard). How many people make up this board? If less than 10, then one would not expect a woman to be present... statistically.

There's no reason why a person couldn't excel on a mine safety advisory board even if they never drove a mining truck or monitored a leaching tank. Working at a mine and understanding the practices and policies that best ensure mine worker's safety aren't the same things.

 

[Gun Nut]

Gender equity is different than gender equality. Rarely are all things equal. The goal is being equitable.
In this case, how many people in the mining industry as a whole are female? I found an article that says that 11% of the mining industry in South Africa is female... but couldn't find more global or any other regional data (but I didn't try hard). How many people make up this board? If less than 10, then one would not expect a woman to be present... statistically.

There's no reason why a person couldn't excel on a mine safety advisory board even if they never drove a mining truck or monitored a leaching tank. Working at a mine and understanding the practices and policies that best ensure mine worker's safety aren't the same things.

I agree... that is why I said the industry (which includes Administrative Services, IT, trucking... not just the people with pick axes). What is important for an advisory board is representation of interests and knowledge of components of the industry. The purpose of gender requirements are to ensure representation is distributed by gender in the same proportion the industry is. In a gender-dominated industry, the two purposes may be in opposition to each other.

 

[Metaphor]

No, that isn't the point.

I agree the government is incompetent, for having such a policy in the first place.

It is sad that the mining industry in Australia needs a committee to advise it on avoiding unnecessary deaths. Why can't the mining industry do the right thing on it's own initiative? How come it is the government that is judged incompetent and not the people running the mines?

It's a government advisory committee on mining; I assume safety is part of the agenda but it is also wider than that.

Whether advisory boards actually do anything useful is a separate debate. If they don't, then there should be no debate about gender quotas, they should be dissolved all together.

 

[Metaphor]

Gender equity is different than gender equality. Rarely are all things equal. The goal is being equitable.
In this case, how many people in the mining industry as a whole are female? I found an article that says that 11% of the mining industry in South Africa is female... but couldn't find more global or any other regional data (but I didn't try hard). How many people make up this board? If less than 10, then one would not expect a woman to be present... statistically.

There's no reason why a person couldn't excel on a mine safety advisory board even if they never drove a mining truck or monitored a leaching tank. Working at a mine and understanding the practices and policies that best ensure mine worker's safety aren't the same things.

No, they're not "the same" but boards are usually drawn from people with experience in the industry, and who have demonstrated the knowledge, skills, interest and commitment in the purpose of the board.

A few years ago a board was named and shamed because it had no female directors. It was a plumbing board. It didn't occur to the shamers to remotely consider the possibility that an occupation that is 99.4% male is probably going to have an all-male board, even without a skerrick of prejudice on anybody's part.

 

[Arctish]

Gender equity is different than gender equality. Rarely are all things equal. The goal is being equitable.
In this case, how many people in the mining industry as a whole are female? I found an article that says that 11% of the mining industry in South Africa is female... but couldn't find more global or any other regional data (but I didn't try hard). How many people make up this board? If less than 10, then one would not expect a woman to be present... statistically.

There's no reason why a person couldn't excel on a mine safety advisory board even if they never drove a mining truck or monitored a leaching tank. Working at a mine and understanding the practices and policies that best ensure mine worker's safety aren't the same things.

No, they're not "the same" but boards are usually drawn from people with experience in the industry, and who have demonstrated the knowledge, skills, interest and commitment in the purpose of the board.

People with experience in workplace safety are just as valuable as people with experience in mining on a mining safety advisory board.

I don't know how things are in Australia but in the US, HR departments are largely run by women and workplace safety is well within their sphere of operations. The women who work in a mining company's HR department probably know more about safety regulations than the workers themselves. Why wouldn't one of them be fit to serve on a safety advisory board?

 

[Metaphor]

No, they're not "the same" but boards are usually drawn from people with experience in the industry, and who have demonstrated the knowledge, skills, interest and commitment in the purpose of the board.

People with experience in workplace safety are just as valuable as people with experience in mining on a mining safety advisory board.

I don't know how things are in Australia but in the US, HR departments are largely run by women and workplace safety is well within their sphere of operations. The women who work in a mining company's HR department probably know more about safety regulations than the workers themselves. Why wouldn't one of them be fit to serve on a safety advisory board?

I'm not sure where I implied otherwise.

 

[Arctish]

No, they're not "the same" but boards are usually drawn from people with experience in the industry, and who have demonstrated the knowledge, skills, interest and commitment in the purpose of the board.

People with experience in workplace safety are just as valuable as people with experience in mining on a mining safety advisory board.

I don't know how things are in Australia but in the US, HR departments are largely run by women and workplace safety is well within their sphere of operations. The women who work in a mining company's HR department probably know more about safety regulations than the workers themselves. Why wouldn't one of them be fit to serve on a safety advisory board?

I'm not sure where I implied otherwise.

You did it when you doubted the women appointed to the mine safety advisory board were qualified for those positions because it was statistically unlikely they were miners.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Gender equity is different than gender equality. Rarely are all things equal. The goal is being equitable.
In this case, how many people in the mining industry as a whole are female? I found an article that says that 11% of the mining industry in South Africa is female... but couldn't find more global or any other regional data (but I didn't try hard). How many people make up this board? If less than 10, then one would not expect a woman to be present... statistically.

There's no reason why a person couldn't excel on a mine safety advisory board even if they never drove a mining truck or monitored a leaching tank. Working at a mine and understanding the practices and policies that best ensure mine worker's safety aren't the same things.

There's a lot to be said for the people regulating an industry having experience actually doing it so they know what is practical and what isn't. My former boss' long-standing fight with the EPA comes to mind. They kept after us for not doing as well at reducing emissions as our competition. We told them over and over that our competition must be faking the data as their numbers simply weren't possible. Took the EPA more than 10 years to figure out we were right.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not sure where I implied otherwise.

You did it when you doubted the women appointed to the mine safety advisory board were qualified for those positions because it was statistically unlikely they were miners.

No. I didn't say they weren't qualified nor did I say people who are not miners wouldn't be qualified.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not sure where I implied otherwise.

You did it when you doubted the women appointed to the mine safety advisory board were qualified for those positions because it was statistically unlikely they were miners.

No. I didn't say they weren't qualified nor did I say people who are not miners wouldn't be qualified.

Apparently your position is "Quotas are bad". Which is different than the OP which is "This quota caused the deaths of miners" because the OP claim is an unsubstantiated claim that is belied by the OP cited article.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No. I didn't say they weren't qualified nor did I say people who are not miners wouldn't be qualified.

Apparently your position is "Quotas are bad". Which is different than the OP which is "This quota caused the deaths of miners" because the OP claim is an unsubstantiated claim that is belied by the OP cited article.

If miners died, it is because the mining industry did not take miner's safety as an important priority. There should be no need of a government miner safety advisory board in the mining industry cared about miner safety. Does the mining industry really sit around twiddling its thumbs waiting for government agency to guide them on miner safety to avoid unnecessary deaths?

Why no criticism of the mining industry for its glaring failure?