Actually, he's incorrect. EEOC is measured not by qualification, but rather by determining what percentage of the population were hired. You shouldn't see a dramatic difference in the percentage of men hired versus women hired. The selection of interviewees is the same regardless of gender. To determine compliance with the law, JetBlue must show that there isn't a significant difference in hiring stats for the protected classes.

 

I’m not following you here. Are you saying that if 90 men and 10 women apply for 10 jobs, then 5 men and 5 women should be hired? It doesn’t matter what percentages are in the general population, it matters what the percentage of the applicants are. At least, that’s the logical or mathematical answer. In the above scenario, statistics say that 9 men and 1 woman should be hired, all things being equal. That way, everyone (both the men and the women) have a 10% chance of being hired. Based on that pool, and of course equal qualifications, you don’t hire 5 men and 5 women because the general population is 50/50.

Maybe I just misunderstood your post, because there should definitely be a higher percentage of men in a class then women since the applicant pool presumably has a much greater percentage of men. I’m in no way saying that people should be hired based on the makeup of the applicant pool. I’m just saying that statistically, that’s what will happen on its own.

 

Yeah fair question & yes, flew AF. And the answer is I’m happy here for the most part and so not trying to leave (and not complaining).

If your buds are relatively new military aviators then yeah they might have to build up some time, get some quals, first. The folks I’m talking about have 7 - 10 years (plus) experience…some spent a bit of time at the regional too. I’m assuming the guy I was responding to (Passer) also has plenty of experience (mil, 121, Bus type, etc.)…

And I never said it was “easy” for anyone. Guys still have to go to job fairs, do the interview prep, spend time on the apps, etc.

 

Lol, ok, point taken Sir

 

At UAL they were found to be in violation for not hiring 50% women. Nevermind that probably only 10% of applicants are women. This is why if you are female and meet minimum qualifications you pretty much have the job there. Just one example.

Have you looked around jetblue? The pilots tend to be white males, but the rest of the airline is majority Hispanic. They definitely recruit this group. I personally don't care, as it makes business sense considering all the Latin America flying we do.

This place discriminates. Just like they all do. It's social justice at work.

 

I don't know that particular case, but I suspect that you misunderstood it. Employers are not required to hire 50% men and 50% women. They are required to be able to show that they do not discriminate on the basis of sex, which means that their stats have to show that of the people who applied, they do not discriminate against a protected class. You can't be sued for not hiring people who don't apply.

In other words, if 90% of those who apply are men, and 10% are women, that is fine. What is NOT fine is if 80% of the men who apply are hired, and 20% of the women who apply are hired.

The company must be able to show that of the protected classes who applied, the appropriate percentages are successful. Does that make sense?

 

The theory is sound, the practice is suspect.

 

The number of less qualified individuals hired based on things not experiential is a fact.
I know 5 individuals myself who should have had to amass at least 2000 more hours to even be considered borderline candidates-They were hired years before 6000+ TT experienced people were overlooked.
Bias, plain and simple.

 

I'm just saying that's how the system works. So for instance, at my last airline we had to prove that our hiring percentages didn't change. If for the past 10 years we had hired 6% women, if it changed to 2%, we were in trouble. So once a year, we had to take all of the surveys that get submitted during the application, compare those to the applicant's record to see if they were hired, then throw that into a spreadsheet. It would show what percentage of applicants were successful/unsuccessful from each protected class.

I suspect that "real" airlines do this monthly or in some other organized way. For my regional it was always something that was an afterthought... "oh crap, someone go through the EEOC surveys and throw it all into a spreadsheet."

 

Not really, UAL was supposed to hire females at double the application rate, compared to males. So 1000 pilots apply for 100 jobs, 50 applicants are female (less then 4% of atps are female), at least 10 hires female, class is still 90% male. UAL didn’t comply, and hired 4% female, which was LESS than the application ratio. Off course these numbers are not corrected for experience, but to state that any female with an ATP got hired when they hired less than 60 out of more than 1600 is very disingenuous.



In a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the commission charged that United has failed to abide by a 1976 consent decree in which the airline agreed to hire qualified minority and women pilots at double the rate at which they applied for the jobs in relation to white males.

Based on data provided by the company, the EEOC said United received more than 32,500 applications for entry-level pilot positions between 1985 and 1987.

Among the 1,400 pilots hired, 75 were blacks or other minorities and 59 were women--a ratio smaller than the share of blacks and women in the pool of applicants, the commission said.