My job search issues

[Warren Smith]

I want to address a common challenge encountered when facing voluntary demographic statements and companies' diversity goals. Many firms emphasize their commitment to diversity by aiming to increase the representation of underrepresented groups within their workforce by a certain percentage by 2025, for example.

 

However, as someone who falls within the "over-represented" demographic, it can be disheartening to navigate this landscape. It becomes particularly challenging when faced with a "voluntary demographic statement" during the job application process. How should one respond in the best possible way?

Legally, companies should not discriminate against applicants based on their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, disability status (unless directly relevant to the job), and so forth. However, it's evident from their diversity statements that they are actively seeking to reduce the representation of individuals in my particular demographic profile.

 

Choosing the "I prefer not to answer" option may come across as confrontational, and there's a concern that not answering defaults to being classified as "white, male, cis-gendered, non-disabled, non-veteran" through computer sorting anyway. This classification could potentially categorize me as an undesirable candidate, compounded by the perception of being confrontational. On the other hand, perhaps refusing to answer these "voluntary" questions might prevent me from being labeled as the least-desirable "WMCAN" (white male cis able-bodied non-veteran).

 

I would appreciate your thoughts and insights on this matter. How have others handled voluntary demographic statements while aiming to maintain a fair and unbiased evaluation process? Are there strategies or approaches that have proven effective in showcasing our qualifications without unintentionally limiting our chances of consideration?

[Jon Johanning]

I think that the basic problem is that large companies like these try these days to automate the whole process of establishing contact with them, because masses of people are trying to do that, especially to apply for jobs, by setting up processes that individuals cannot bypass, and they can't possibly deal with them individually. And if you want to do something that the process they've set up doesn't allow, you're up the old creek without a paddle.

Jon Johanning

[Charlie Milroy]

Personally, I wouldn't want to work for a company that is more interested in demographics than me as a person. The very concept of the question is discriminatory and does not deserve an answer. If they will discriminate based on your non-response, then they will discriminate against you based on your truthful response.

[Warren Smith]

Unfortunately, not only is this not uncommon, but it has actually become the norm in the US.

 

The idea of asking someone about their sexual preferences during a job interview is bizarre, and the fact that this appears to be mandated by the government is absolutely surreal.

 

---

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/GV1P193MB2021BD1B89EC5875123ED4AECF409%40GV1P193MB2021.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Joe Jones]

The EEO information questions are only for statistical gathering purposes (to detect potential discrimination in the hiring process). It is very illegal for employers to actually look at the individual responses when making hiring decisions, or to take action against people who decline to answer.

A good explanation here: https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/public-articles/employment-law/what-are-eeo-questions-why-do-we-have-them

[M. Therrien]

I’m going to jump in to clear up this misunderstanding. How you answer that questionnaire has no bearing on how your job application is handled. These questions are asked for the purpose of creating aggregate reports for the EEOC by employers over a certain size. The information may not be used for applicant screening and may not be shared with the hiring manager. By law, employers may not discriminate in hiring. But without data, it is of course not possible to assess whether an employer is discriminating. For example, if 50% of job applications received by an employer are from females, and yet only 15% of successful applicants are female, that would raise a red flag. I would hope that everyone would agree that discrimination (which was rampant and blatant when I began my career) is a bad thing and should be stamped out.

Marceline Therrien

thinkJapanese business translations

On May 23, 2023, at 9:36 AM, Warren Smith <warren...@comcast.net> wrote:

I want to address a common challenge encountered when facing voluntary demographic statements and companies' diversity goals. Many firms emphasize their commitment to diversity by aiming to increase the representation of underrepresented groups within their workforce by a certain percentage by 2025, for example.

 

However, as someone who falls within the "over-represented" demographic, it can be disheartening to navigate this landscape. It becomes particularly challenging when faced with a "voluntary demographic statement" during the job application process. How should one respond in the best possible way?

<image002.jpg>

Legally, companies should not discriminate against applicants based on their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, disability status (unless directly relevant to the job), and so forth. However, it's evident from their diversity statements that they are actively seeking to reduce the representation of individuals in my particular demographic profile.

 

Choosing the "I prefer not to answer" option may come across as confrontational, and there's a concern that not answering defaults to being classified as "white, male, cis-gendered, non-disabled, non-veteran" through computer sorting anyway. This classification could potentially categorize me as an undesirable candidate, compounded by the perception of being confrontational. On the other hand, perhaps refusing to answer these "voluntary" questions might prevent me from being labeled as the least-desirable "WMCAN" (white male cis able-bodied non-veteran).

 

I would appreciate your thoughts and insights on this matter. How have others handled voluntary demographic statements while aiming to maintain a fair and unbiased evaluation process? Are there strategies or approaches that have proven effective in showcasing our qualifications without unintentionally limiting our chances of consideration?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/6511E579B8254AD1B85F6DF9E5C00EA0%40WarrenSmithDell.

[Warren Smith]

Thank you Marceline and Joe. I appreciate the information. Very useful.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CBECB85B-0676-4235-97B6-853F4099398D%40thinkjapanese.com.

[Dan Lucas]

The information may not be used for applicant screening and may not be shared with the hiring manager. By law, employers may not discriminate in hiring. 

Marceline, I'm going to jump to clear up this misunderstanding. I have no doubt that you wrote the above with the best of intentions, but in real life people do do things they should not, even things that are prohibited in law.

Case in point: for decades people all over the world have discriminated against the ethnic minorities of their countries, even when forbidden to do so by statute. They should not, and yet it has happened and continues to happen. I think we agree on that? Human nature.

Are we really, collectively, naive enough to believe that if a company needs to make certain diversity quotas by a certain date under their D&I policy, they will not find a way to ensure that this is done, somehow, even if that means unobtrusive discrimination against those belonging to majority ethnicities? This too is human nature.

Failure by a listed company to hit ESG benchmarks to which a public commitment has been made can mean removal (or preclusion) from associated indices, boycotting by investors, and ultimately share price weakness. Especially for US or UK organisations that tend to use performance-linked remuneration based on shares, that would not a good outcome for upper management.

And lower down the management hierarchy, there are many eager, politically committed young staffers who, in their heart of hearts, see nothing fundamentally wrong with discriminating against older, whiter, people. It's easy to see in which direction the pressure builds.

Note that I am not expressing an opinion on the desirability or otherwise of reporting on ethnic diversity. I am expressing pragmatic acknowledgement of the immutability of certain human drives, such as greed and fear. These influence decision-making within large organisations just as they affect decision-making by individuals.

Most of us on this list seem to be whiter and older.

It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that in 2023 this doesn't cut both ways.

Regards,

Dan Lucas

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CBECB85B-0676-4235-97B6-853F4099398D%40thinkjapanese.com.

[M. Therrien]

If you have reason to believe that a company is improperly (illegally?) misusing EEO survey information, you shouldn’t apply for that job in the first place. Even if you were to get the job, you’d be joining a company that you already believe is engaged in improper (illegal?) conduct, which seems like a bad way to start a new job. So the question of whether to answer the survey questions is somewhat moot.

I did some Googling and couldn’t find a single instance of a company being accused of misusing EEO survey information (by either a whistleblower or law enforcement), but if you can produce such information, I would be interested to see it. 

Marceline Therrien

On May 23, 2023, at 11:55 PM, Dan Lucas <dan....@carninglipartners.com> wrote:

The information may not be used for applicant screening and may not be shared with the hiring manager. By law, employers may not discriminate in hiring. 

Marceline, I'm going to jump to clear up this misunderstanding. I have no doubt that you wrote the above with the best of intentions, but in real life people do do things they should not, even things that are prohibited in law.

Case in point: for decades people all over the world have discriminated against the ethnic minorities of their countries, even when forbidden to do so by statute. They should not, and yet it has happened and continues to happen. I think we agree on that? Human nature.

Are we really, collectively, naive enough to believe that if a company needs to make certain diversity quotas by a certain date under their D&I policy, they will not find a way to ensure that this is done, somehow, even if that means unobtrusive discrimination against those belonging to majority ethnicities? This too is human nature.

Failure by a listed company to hit ESG benchmarks to which a public commitment has been made can mean removal (or preclusion) from associated indices, boycotting by investors, and ultimately share price weakness. Especially for US or UK organisations that tend to use performance-linked remuneration based on shares, that would not a good outcome for upper management. 

And lower down the management hierarchy, there are many eager, politically committed young staffers who, in their heart of hearts, see nothing fundamentally wrong with discriminating against older, whiter, people. It's easy to see in which direction the pressure builds.

Note that I am not expressing an opinion on the desirability or otherwise of reporting on ethnic diversity. I am expressing pragmatic acknowledgement of the immutability of certain human drives, such as greed and fear. These influence decision-making within large organisations just as they affect decision-making by individuals. 

Most of us on this list seem to be whiter and older.

It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that in 2023 this doesn't cut both ways.

Regards,

Dan Lucas

On Tue, 23 May 2023, at 20:16, M. Therrien wrote:

I’m going to jump in to clear up this misunderstanding. How you answer that questionnaire has no bearing on how your job application is handled. These questions are asked for the purpose of creating aggregate reports for the EEOC by employers over a certain size. The information may not be used for applicant screening and may not be shared with the hiring manager. By law, employers may not discriminate in hiring. But without data, it is of course not possible to assess whether an employer is discriminating. For example, if 50% of job applications received by an employer are from females, and yet only 15% of successful applicants are female, that would raise a red flag. I would hope that everyone would agree that discrimination (which was rampant and blatant when I began my career) is a bad thing and should be stamped out.

<What-are-EEO-Questions-Why-Do-We-Have-Them.jpeg>

What are EEO Questions & Why Do We Have Them? attorneyatlawmagazine.com

Data and Analytics - Overview eeoc.gov

<favicon.ico>

[Jan Cash]

Those questions are used for evaluation after a position is filled to see if the hiring process is biased. They're not used for evaluating candidates.

Also, this conversation seems like it's veered away from translation. Perhaps we should move back to discussing translation and translation-related career paths?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/44E334A7CF8D4B0589FF7EF1A31EC446%40WarrenSmithDell.

[Dan Lucas]

Warren - some thoughts further down ↓.

Marceline - I completely agree that it would be desirable to avoid companies that indulge in such practices. With regard to evidence that such practices do exist, I have nothing in particular and - unless I were an insider - it would likely be impossible to obtain, as is the case for most white-collar wrongdoing. As I watched the rise and fall of Enron unfold twenty years ago, I had no evidence that fraud existed, and yet...

One of the problems with discrimination on the grounds of skin colour is that it is very difficult to prove that it occurred in a typical application or interview setting. Was it prejudice against a minority candidate, or was it a strong field against which the individual in question was just not sufficiently qualified? Only in egregious cases of racism is that going to be easily determined. The same goes for ageism.

However, if we agree that prejudice can and does work one way - e.g. against ethnic minorities - then there is no reason why the same mechanism cannot be used in the other direction, if a strong enough incentive is provided. I have already pointed to two such incentives, and such discrimination would be as difficult to detect and to prove as "traditional" prejudice. 

Of course, I affirm your right to a different opinion and I believe that two reasonable people may look at the same situation and draw different conclusions in good faith. I also affirm my own right to civilly challenge (up to a point) the views of my peers where it is relevant to the list.

Warren - I apologise for what you might perceive to have been a slight derail of the thread, but I think age and ethnicity are actually important issues for you and for us collectively and that dismissing the subject would be unwise.

Bringing this back to the subject of targets, having personally worked for a couple of non-Japanese multinationals I firmly believe translators looking for new careers should (in general) avoid the largest companies as they tend to be significantly more bureaucratic. I concur that applicants with our background will struggle to get past the gatekeepers, human or AI.

Smaller companies, large enough to have an international presence but agile enough to consider unconventional candidates, may be the way to go. Looking at my schedule I see that I have translated 43 projects in the past month (it's earnings season, obviously) for a wide range of companies, and nearly all have mentioned the US market in their discussions.

This reminds me that the US has probably thousands of outposts of Japanese firms, and this is such an important market that it will not change any time soon. These include (again, probably) hundreds of Japanese manufacturers, and the trend towards onshoring of production (including semis) is only going to strengthen. That represents an opportunity that simply isn't open to the residents of most other countries.

If I were you, with your background, I would not be responding to application forms.

I'd be picking twenty of the largest Japanese manufacturers in the machinery or electronics space and sending a carefully tailored cover letter and resumé directly to the HR manager of each. I'd use a letter-sized, card-backed envelope that is too large to ignore, so that they open it just to get it out of their inbox. In terms of content, I'd explain how your skills can help that company, with reference to their product lines or business plans. Tell them that you're happy to interview at any time. Be upbeat and positive.

I'd also look very carefully at Japanese investments in semis and SPE in the US, and see if there is any potential there.

All in all, it wouldn't be easy, and you are unlikely to get much of a response - it is a numbers game - but you only need one or two to bite. Also, to be blunt, what's the alternative? Smaller patent law firms maybe?

Even if you were successful you might have to relocate within the US, but surely that is going to be easier than relocating to a different and distant country that your spouse has only visited once.

I appreciate that things are tough right now, and I'm keenly aware that some day I may be in a similar situation myself. I hope you work something out.

Regards,

Dan Lucas

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/0C2D53CF-B806-4F55-92BE-2307FCF082BC%40thinkjapanese.com.

[Warren Smith]

This is really great stuff.

 

I think you are exactly right -- we need to find work-arounds to get to the real decision makers, skipping the AI. I like your approach of the odd-sized envelope.

 

Thanks for the ideas -- they are greatly appreciated.

 

Warren Smith

 

---

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lucas
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 3:09 AM
To: Honyaku E<>J translation list
Subject: Re: My job search issues

 

Warren - some thoughts further down ↓.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/5509973f-9f19-46f1-86a2-8649543f32de%40app.fastmail.com.