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

[Metaphor]

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...uota-as-sixth-miner-dies-20190708-p5253a.html

A mining advisory committee dissolved six months ago because the Queensland government was unable to make gender requirements has been reformed as the industry reels from its sixth death in 12 months.
...
Queensland Mines Minister Anthony Lynham said the re-established advisory committee would meet within days and gender representation had to be respected.
...
It is Palaszczuk government policy to have gender equity on all government boards by 2020.

Dr Lynham vowed to leave "no stone unturned" as safety was re-evaluated.

 

[Trausti]

Fuck the patriarchy! I guess.

 

[laughing dog]

According to the article, women were nominated but not selected. So the quota is only an issue due to the incompetence of the gov't. Is that the point of the OP?

 

[Metaphor]

No, that isn't the point.

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

 

[laughing dog]

No, that isn't the point.

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

Then what is the point? There is no evidence whatsoever that if the advisory committee had met that there would have been fewer deaths.

 

[Arctish]

How would the advisory board have prevented that miner's death if it had re-convened six months ago, or if there had been no requirement for balanced gender representation?

 

[Metaphor]

If the advisory board does nothing and has no effect on safety standards, then it wouldn't have prevented any deaths and it ought be dissolved. Its gender composition would be meaningless because it does nothing and serves no purpose.

However, if it does do something, and a death could have been prevented if it had met, then the imposition of gender quotas contributed to those deaths.

 

[laughing dog]

If the advisory board does nothing and has no effect on safety standards, then it wouldn't have prevented any deaths and it ought be dissolved. Its gender composition would be meaningless because it does nothing and serves no purpose.

However, if it does do something, and a death could have been prevented if it had met, then the imposition of gender quotas contributed to those deaths.

Not according to your cited article, since women were nominated for that board. Nor have you provided an iota of actual evidence that even if the board had met, that it would have acted quickly and sufficiently to have prevented any deaths.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it was a problem. The board was short two women, and clearly it was forbidden from meeting until women were appointed. Perhaps the women chosen for the position were not good enough, which is why the government sat on its hands and failed to accept their nomination. Perhaps the government could have had a slightly different policy that doesn't forbid a gender- uneven board from meeting.

But if the board really could have done nothing to steer mine safety, then it really is next to useless. And if, as you imagine, not meeting made no difference to anything, what's the point of having a board?

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it was a problem. The board was short two women, and clearly it was forbidden from meeting until women were appointed. Perhaps the women chosen for the position were not good enough, which is why the government sat on its hands and failed to accept their nomination. Perhaps the government could have had a slightly different policy that doesn't forbid a gender- uneven board from meeting.

In other words, you are just posturing, since clearly you have absolutely no evidence whatseoever to support whatever actual point you are trying to make.

But if the board really could have done nothing to steer mine safety, then it really is next to useless. And if, as you imagine, not meeting made no difference to anything, what's the point of having a board?

No one said the board could have done nothing. I asked for evidence that if the board had met that it would have necessarily made a difference.

It is possible the gender quota contributed to these tragedies. It is also possible that the gender quota had nothing to do with these tragedies. In order to actually assess which is more likely, one would need much more information - something that is sorely missing from your arguments.

 

[Arctish]

Of course it was a problem. The board was short two women, and clearly it was forbidden from meeting until women were appointed. Perhaps the women chosen for the position were not good enough, which is why the government sat on its hands and failed to accept their nomination. Perhaps the government could have had a slightly different policy that doesn't forbid a gender- uneven board from meeting.

But if the board really could have done nothing to steer mine safety, then it really is next to useless. And if, as you imagine, not meeting made no difference to anything, what's the point of having a board?

Were the female candidates unqualified to hold those positions?

The impression I got is that they were eventually appointed to the board after a six month delay. So either the advisory board now has a couple of unqualified members, or there was no good reason for it not to have re-convened six months ago.

 

[Metaphor]

If there were no gender requirement, the most suitable people would have been nominated to the board. In an industry like mining, it is likely therefore that most people qualified to be on the board would be men, since mining is a heavily male industry.

You are speculating that the gender requirement made no difference, or it's possible that it made no difference, to the deaths. Yes, it's possible, but I also would say advisory boards are formed for a reason.

The evidence is not a crapshoot between "board meetings would worsen safety" "board meetings would have no effect" and "board meetings would improve safety".

But let's take the deaths out of it. The board didn't meet because it didn't have a gender quota. Do you think that's a good outcome of gender quotas? Do you think miners benefit from that rule?

 

[Metaphor]

It's a mathematical certainty that if you are forced to restrict your search for talent to a single gender, you will systematically be making worse decisions than if you had no such restrictions.

The board reconvened no doubt was spurred by the publicity around this latest death. I don't know if they met with or without the women previously nominated.

 

[Arctish]

If there were no gender requirement, the most suitable people would have been nominated to the board. In an industry like mining, it is likely therefore that most people qualified to be on the board would be men, since mining is a heavily male industry.

You are speculating that the gender requirement made no difference, or it's possible that it made no difference, to the deaths. Yes, it's possible, but I also would say advisory boards are formed for a reason.

The evidence is not a crapshoot between "board meetings would worsen safety" "board meetings would have no effect" and "board meetings would improve safety".

But let's take the deaths out of it. The board didn't meet because it didn't have a gender quota. Do you think that's a good outcome of gender quotas? Do you think miners benefit from that rule?

I don't think it's a good outcome for miners when a mining safety advisory board doesn't meet, no matter the reason and no matter how toothless it might be.

But the reason it didn't re-convene matters. If it didn't meet because there were insufficient qualified candidates for those positions, that's a shame. More recruitment is obviously needed.

If it didn't meet because the men on the board refused to seat women despite them being qualified, that's a scandal. Those men need to be removed from the board. They put their own sexist bullshit ahead of the work of the advisory board and the safety of miners.

If there was another reason, it's important to find out what it was and to address it so it doesn't interfere with safety board's work being done in an efficient, timely manner.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't think it's a good outcome for miners when a mining safety advisory board doesn't meet, no matter the reason and no matter how toothless it might be.

But the reason it didn't re-convene matters. If it didn't meet because there were insufficient qualified candidates for those positions, that's a shame. More recruitment is obviously needed.

It's possible that there were insufficient female candidates but not insufficient candidates overall, and but for the gender requirement, the board could have had a full complement.

If it didn't meet because the men on the board refused to seat women despite them being qualified, that's a scandal. Those men need to be removed from the board. They put their own sexist bullshit ahead of the work of the advisory board and the safety of miners.

There are many possibilities apart from what you've outlined. Perhaps the women on the board didn't think the nominated women were up to scratch. Or (as I think is the case), government ministers make government board appointments, and those ministers either didn't get around to it, didn't think it was urgent, didn't think the nominees were up to scratch, etc.

If there was another reason, it's important to find out what it was and to address it so it doesn't interfere with safety board's work being done in an efficient, timely manner.

But, what of the gender quota in the first place? Is that good policy? If so, why?

 

[Arctish]

It's possible that there were insufficient female candidates but not insufficient candidates overall, and but for the gender requirement, the board could have had a full complement.



There are many possibilities apart from what you've outlined. Perhaps the women on the board didn't think the nominated women were up to scratch. Or (as I think is the case), government ministers make government board appointments, and those ministers either didn't get around to it, didn't think it was urgent, didn't think the nominees were up to scratch, etc.

From the OP article:

Queensland Resources Council chief executive Ian Macfarlane said the QRC had nominated two women for the committee six months ago.

“I’m not sure why that committee hasn’t been operating,” he said.

It sounds like there were qualified nominees and the reason they weren't appointed to the advisory board is a bit of a mystery. If the board is re-convening with those women now on it, the 6 month delay is even more inexplicable.

If there was another reason, it's important to find out what it was and to address it so it doesn't interfere with safety board's work being done in an efficient, timely manner.

But, what of the gender quota in the first place? Is that good policy? If so, why?

Quotas are a very crude method of achieving a goal, and there's always the risk it will result in lesser quality candidates being appointed while higher quality candidates are overlooked. However, it's been my experience that whenever quotas are implemented, it's in response to qualified candidates being overlooked for some stupid, irrelevant factor like race, religion, gender, etc.. The quotas I'm familiar with were designed to overcome that sort of thing.

I don't know why gender quotas have been adopted in Queensland but I suspect it was in response to the obdurate sexism of men in positions of power. Overcoming that kind of entrenched bigotry is IMO not just good policy, it's essential for a well functioning, progressive society.

 

[Metaphor]

How do you know that gender quotas overcome the "obdurate sexism" of men? How did you measure this obdurate sexism?

Do you believe that in every industry and for every board, the talent pool suitable for board membership is split equally between the genders?

I don't. Any understanding of the labour market should lead you away from quotas. Yet here we are.

 

[prideandfall]

Of course it was a problem. The board was short two women, and clearly it was forbidden from meeting until women were appointed. Perhaps the women chosen for the position were not good enough, which is why the government sat on its hands and failed to accept their nomination.

because if there's one thing that human history on this planet has taught us, it's that a lack of qualified individuals for a given position means government comes to a screeching halt and refuses to function, until such time as the best people possible are found.

if the women offered up for the position were incompetent that's no different than the fact that the men offered up would have been equally incompetent, statistically speaking.
this whole "nyeh, gender" bullshit you're trying to peddle is rather nakedly a sexism smokescreen.

 

[Arctish]

How do you know that gender quotas overcome the "obdurate sexism" of men? How did you measure this obdurate sexism?

Do you believe that in every industry and for every board, the talent pool suitable for board membership is split equally between the genders?

I don't. Any understanding of the labour market should lead you away from quotas. Yet here we are.

I don't think gender quotas overcome obdurate sexism in men who have that trait. I think they neutralize the effects of the obdurate sexism of men in positions of power to some extent by lessening its impact on hiring decisions.

I don't believe that in every industry and for every board, the talent pool suitable for board membership is split equally between the genders. Neither do I believe it is so limited that only one or two qualified candidates can be found for each position except in very rarified fields. I think that in something as commonplace as workplace safety in a country as large as Australia, there are thousands of qualified candidates to serve on a safety advisory board, and that they aren't all or even mostly men.

Understanding the labour market is one thing, understanding the value to society of overcoming discrimination is another. Don't get me wrong, I think the market is great at what it does. But it doesn't act in the national interest except by happenstance. That's the job of government, along with fostering prosperity and social harmony. One way a government can do that is by removing or at least neutralizing socially harmful impediments to the success of their citizens. And one way to remove those impediments is through a quota system.

I'm not saying quotas are great or that we should have more of them. They're crude tools with definite drawbacks. But they can be useful.

What was the government of Queensland responding to when it adopted them? Was it a particular situation that got a lot of attention, or was it response to widespread discrimination in board level positions and government agencies?

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it was a problem. The board was short two women, and clearly it was forbidden from meeting until women were appointed. Perhaps the women chosen for the position were not good enough, which is why the government sat on its hands and failed to accept their nomination.

because if there's one thing that human history on this planet has taught us, it's that a lack of qualified individuals for a given position means government comes to a screeching halt and refuses to function, until such time as the best people possible are found.

if the women offered up for the position were incompetent that's no different than the fact that the men offered up would have been equally incompetent, statistically speaking.

Non.

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.

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.

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.