Thursday, 4 November 2010

clueless, the sequel

so, part 2 of the clueless business owner: apparently the news item from the other day prompted another woman to come forward with the exact same experience with the exact same person. this woman was rejected in 2008, and has gone on to have a successful job selling cars in australia:

Rejected by 4 Guys Autobarn because she was a woman, Kylie Thompson said she got offers from three car dealerships in Australia and was now selling up to eight cars a week.

Ms Thompson was 21 in 2008 when 4 Guys Autobarn general manager Monte Wells sent her a rejection letter, saying he was looking for a male salesperson over 30 but couldn't say that in his advertisement....

She said she probably wouldn't have moved to Australia if he hadn't rejected her application, and she loved her new job and life, but recalled being disgusted by her treatment at the time, and getting stuck into Mr Wells over it.

"I was really disgruntled about it. I gave him a call and asked him why he had advertised as an equal opportunities employer ... he ended up hanging up on me."

She did not know at the time that it was possible to make a complaint over her treatment.

the hard copy article included those little snippets they do with comments of people off the street. other than chris walmsley (lawyer !?) supporting mr wells for being honest & getting done for it, all others were against the discrimination as was the editorial for the day.

yeah, i have to say that i'm totally over people who are obnoxious being praised for their "honesty". ok, i'll be the first to admit that an honest bigot is better than a dishonest bigot, but let's stop acting like the bigotry is no big deal or that the honesty is a bigger deal than the bigotry. the negative consequences of bigotry, both for the individual and for society as a whole, are economically & socially significant.

i have to say that i was bemused by these statements from ms thomson:

... couples shopping for a car were an example of situations where buyers might prefer to deal with a woman – because it was the wife's opinion that counted and they often found female staff more genuine.

"The wife wants what the wife wants and if the husband can keep the wife happy, it's all fine."

i can see she's trying to make a case for hiring female sales staff. but really, the case is that women who can do the job just as well should be considered equally because it's the right thing to do; it's not that they have some special womanly qualities that men don't have (being more genuine, for example).

and for mr wells' rather pathetic justification:

"I've employed 15 female salespeople in the last 12 years, against the industry average. Two have been very successful, one right up there. Basically the others have struggled. That's the truth of the matter."

all this shows is that you, mr wells, are bad at picking staff. it could also mean that the attitudes you hold make it difficult for women workers to perform well, knowing that you expect them to fail, and most probably working in an environment where they are judged much more harshly than their male counterparts. ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies, dude?


James said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
stargazer said...

sorry james, i just don't have patience with you today, and i'm just not interested in hosting your views here. feel free to set up your own blog & have a little rant about how unfair it is to not be allowed to discriminate over there.

Deborah said...

Seconded, anjum.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deborah said...

Anon at 7.28 - your comment has been deleted in line with our comments policy. Please feel free to post again, using a handle to identify yourself. A pseudonym is fine.