Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   The Indian Car Scene (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/)

-   -   Tata Motors & diversity in action | Harrier & Safari built entirely by women (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/257298-tata-motors-diversity-action-harrier-safari-built-entirely-women-4.html)

That too would be some form of reservation wouldn’t it? Why have a fixed split either for or against women or men?

I see a lot of companies talking about inclusiveness and equality etc - Its great if it merely means they employ people without considering their sexual orientation / race / sex/ religion etc.

It definitely doesn’t seem ok to me when you fix some sort of a quota or ratio either for or against a particular section.

Not too fond of this ad when it was shared within our managers group. The male/female diversity is off-fashion now and the current diversity trend is LGBTQ+. The number of problems in these two models (Harrier / Safari) don't really help giving any brownie points for the women either (knowing it may not be competency issue largely).

However, I as a manager, can NEVER entertain / encourage this sort of an ad. While I'll bat for the opportunities for ladies as much as gents, I don't believe in any workplace being dominated by either sex. Am also proud that my 30 odd member team has an almost 50-50 gender equality (I sign off the hiring). On the other hand, my global peer group is HIGHLY biased towards the other gender - they all treat me very well and no complaints. :D

In one of the managers outing of our organization, one lady proposed a "quota" system for promotion for ladies and the entire vibe in the ball room became hostile. The senior management was quick to note and diffused the situation but the proposal from this senior person left a lot of gents fuming (immediate questions were about Capability Vs Reservation). Such stupidity actually makes gents to think away from even giving fair opportunity for lladies

PS : I usually take time to ask for the workplace experience from my team members and few of the ladies mentioned it was a great opportunity especially when their distant family members and society thought they weren't capable of getting a job in a good organization and they could prove them wrong. As one of the members posted above, there's still a lot the whole society needs to improve and stop bothering about ladies not taking up jobs.

To my mind it is deeply patronising to hire anybody because of their gender or colour of their skin, it’s downright insulting to tell a woman she was hired not because of her skills, competence, diligence, knowledge but because she’s a woman, it’s like saying we have an all black assembly line or an all scheduled cast assembly line, it shows a misplaced value system where such gender/skin colour attributes are given more importance over merit.

Trying to provide a 50/50 racial or gender representation in a company means actively discriminating against candidates who have the merit but don’t fit the minority status. This is wrong in my opinion, nobody should be discriminated against.

Strive to provide equality of opportunity not equality of outcome if you want a just, merit based society that aims for excellence and not pleasing woke leftists on twitter. Cheers.

In an industry that's dominated by male workers, on the manufacturing lines, many times over, a single line of production dedicated to women seems to have many of us here in a twist.

This is similar to the pro and anti-reservation argument. This isn't about equality. It's is about social justice and righting years of patriarchal thought.

Tata makes close to 45,000 cars a month of which a line producing 4,500 cars is by women. And we talk about niggles and that it's probably because of the women. It's a mighty shame.

There is no social justice in the way you describe it, its dangerous.

When you do a 100% reservation, it simply means opportunities were taken away from another section of the society.

Right now its fashionable perhaps and all the SJW`s will follow the trend, promote it , not knowing its implications in the future (very typical of them). There is an entire country in the northern hemisphere that is now clueless as to what their future holds, unfortunately they control most of the so called social media.

For example you cannot hold the grand children of Adolf Hitler accountable for whatever that fellow did in his time, there is no social justice there, just hatred & vengeance. These are not the things a civic society that is build upon the most elaborate constitution in the world is made of.

This kind of reaction is precisely why this ad is needed.
If one ad (made-up and almost tokenist at that) featuring an all women crew is enough to trigger discriminatory feelings.

Imagine what women have actually faced from since the beginning of humanity. at every step they have been told that they are weaker inferior.

Even 'gallant' things like women and children first are essentially positive discrimination.

The problem with this is that we reinforce the idea in the brains of people and most importantly kids both boys and girls that girls are inferior. Every ad that features a mom cooking in the kitchen saying this oil is good for my kids or my choked-artery husband is showing my 12 yr old daughter that her future job is the kitchen.

Search "harrier problems" and there's gonna be a litany of complaints on this forum alone. Men aren't blamed for that. But one ad, and poor product quality is already forecast here on this thread because of the gender of the builders. Without any proof that these employees are actually worse.

My personal note, my mother had admission to the no 1 medical college in Mumbai. My grandfather told her he won't let her join. She protested and he 'allowed' her to do BPharm. Before she graduated, he used a buddy of his to get her a job in a goverment bank. And she spend 26 years there before quitting and starting her own business.

Meritocracy is a myth. Partly because there is no merit discovery market or time to conduct this discovery. Even in public domains like lets say the composition of an Indian cricket team, we can't really objectively tell if we pick Pant or DK. Access, bias, lobbying and wealth play far more important in fructifying opportunities than merit.

More power to Tata. Even if this is discrimination, the pendulum has stayed so far towards one side, it'd be decades and millions of such ads before it can be considered to have swung back hard enough or even remotely come back to being fair.

This is terrible example.
Did he have the guts to state who the best player was?
Things like "best" are optimization problems.
They need an objective function and constraints.

Say Federer, and a million people will tell you why Djoko is better.
Put the racial, financial resistance faced by a player in the picture and the optimization will return a different results.

It's akin to asking what is the best car. There is no real right answer. But it also means that someone saying the alto 1.1 is not the best car because it's has less cylinders than a v6 is dead wrong.

Affirmative action is a complex philosophical topic. For those interested, this is a great Harvard lecture (part of a larger series of lectures) on the topic https://youtu.be/AUhReMT5uqA.

The fundamental question here is "should some men sacrifice their opportunities for the greater good"? This question is at the heart of every affirmative action topic (just have to replace men with other impacted groups).

In my opinion the answer is decidedly, yes! My reason, as I believe Tata's too in making this ad, is market driven. I believe that there's untapped market potential for SUV's amongst women drivers; many women who can afford to buy SUVs decide either to buy hatchbacks, or two wheelers due to historical perception that SUVs are squarely in the masculine domain. By associating SUVs with women, I believe that Tata is seeking to tap this potential. In a broader sense, realisation of this potential could lead to economic growth, and the society as a whole benefits.

This is my hypothesis. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out!

The ACTUAL REASON/BUSINESS LOGIC behind employing Women Workforce (Bajaj has done it too) according to me...


.. Chances of WOMEN workforce forming UNIONS and sitting on DHARNAS.. are LOW

Dear Kosfactor,

Perhaps you didn't read my post in its entirety. It is not 100% reservation. They barely account for 10% of the production numbers. Take all the automobile companies in India, and they would barely make 1% of the workforce. This is about allowing women from lesser means to strive to achieve better freedom overcome stigma and harassment.

This is also not a fashion statement. If you haven't experienced discrimination, it means you have been privileged enough not to. Comparing Adolf Hitler to social justice here cuts no dice. To understand why reservation is in place, you need to understand how civic society discriminates upon the not-so fortunate in the first place, even today. This is not the forum to discuss that either.

I'm just an ordinary middle-aged guy making enough to sustain myself with dignity. I consider myself privileged to be so.

Here's a video that shows how privilege helps.
https://youtu.be/DadT1XmG-YU

This is how we get Mafia, ISIS and other violent groups. When you ensure the skilled, capable and willing thrown out of opportunities intentionally, and for a non pragmatic reason, they use their skills in different ways.

Why not treat all equally? Whats wrong with it?

Couldn't agree with you more!

What comes through very clearly while reading through this thread is the thinly veiled misogyny and gender bias, disguised as a call for fair play. That even some of our moderators and senior members are not free from this bias, is something that pains me deeply.

My apologies to all our lady members who had to read through some of these comments which are down right offensive and in bad taste, even if they are conveyed in polite language.

Sorry, you're objectively wrong here. And this statement by McEnroe doesn't belittle Williams in any sense, it's simple biology.

Quoting from Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batt...Sexes_(tennis)
1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters
Edit
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[59] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[60][59] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[61] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[59] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[62] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[59]

I think it is harsh of you to say we get the Mafia, ISIS, and other violent groups in a discussion that pertains to opportunities for women in workplaces that have always been heavily skewed towards men. Mafias were formed as underground organisations to overthrow foreign rule, and ISIS is a religious extremist terrorist organisation; neither of which are relevant here. I apologise for my seemingly rude tone, but this was a very unfair comparison for you to make.

I notice the women's quota has been compared to caste based reservation too. One thing I would love to point out is that reservation was never about and will never be about stealing seats from the privileged and handing them over to the underprivileged. This is a take a lot of people like to presume to victimise themselves, but it really isn't the case. The women's quota, and reservation, creates additional opportunities for the under-represented. The men's portion isn't being carved into for these opportunities to materialise, but rather new portions are created.

Also honestly, it is a little disheartening to see how quite a few of us are still a little apprehensive about this. Skilled women deserve a slice of the pie we have been eating for centuries. Unskilled women deserve the right to access to acquire said skills. Sometimes, this comes in the form of quotas and reservations to facilitate it for them, and I for one think it is necessary.

Sometimes the beauty of TBHP is that some replies just transport you like a time machine to a bygone age and era. Where that becomes a problem is when that the reply is not not talking about vintage cars or machines. :Frustrati


Coming back to the topic - I jus want to say this, decades and centuries of imbalance can only be fixed by 'over compensating' and not 'just compensating'.

So kudos to TATA for this. More women power ftw! clap: