atw: Re: Discrimination
- From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 11:06:54 +1000
Yes, a very good point. The ASTC(NSW) offered Advanced Word training
courses and specifically said the knowledge of styles was a prerequisite,
but even so I heard that at least one person enrolled without knowing what
a style was. Perhaps that person thought the word was being used in a
non-technical sense, to mean something like 'a way to lay out a document to
look good' - and thought 'well, I know about that'. How do you get around
that - where people don't know what they don't know? I don't think even
careful naming would avoid that one.
I think that's why some employers like to see samples of work presented in
Word (where that's software that's used) rather than in PDF - so they can
examine whether the document uses styles and the author has applied them
intelligently.
Howard
On 2 May 2013 09:32, WongWord@xxxxxxxxx <wongword@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> **
> In my experience when staff are offered Word training courses noone enrols
> for the Word Basics course because "I know all that".
>
> Then they turn up at advanced with me and they can't keep up because they
> don't know the basics such as Bob describes and more.
>
> This is an interesting situation for TW. It indicates the importance of
> naming things correctly. Never call it Word Basic, choose something along
> the lines of Word Refresher/Getting the most out of Word ...
>
> When we wanted staff to use a Word template we employed an expert to
> design a really smart template which included, *for example*, all the
> standard fixed wording, prompts for what content to include, auto para
> numbering, links to a guide about content and had buttons in the menu bar
> for the major styles. Only a few people struggled and they did eventually
> catch on. Luckily senior managers would only review correctly formatted
> documents. (These snr managers were not stupid. They weren't going to
> struggle with badly set out documents which were harder to
> understand.) This forced writers to get their formatting correct in the
> first place or their work just wasn't reviewed and they would miss
> deadlines.
>
> Irene
>
> *From:* Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:13 PM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: Discrimination
>
> Peter,
> You could add
> + lack of experience AND EDUCATION which leads to LOW productivity.
>
> Examples are
> - not knowing that a word processor can generate a table of contents
> - not knowing that a word processor works better when using styles
> - not knowing that a word processor can generate a bulleted list (and a
> two-column table is just a plain silly and clunky work-around)
> - not knowing that a word processor can generate a numbered list.
> - not knowing how to correct or work-around a stuffed up numbered list.
> - not knowing how to set tabs
> - not knowing how to set indents
> - being able to do lots of things in Dreamweaver, but having no idea how
> to edit HTML code
>
> Need I go on!
> I am not making this up.
>
> Bob T
>
>
> On 30 April 2013 11:08, Peter Martin <prescribal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 28, 2013, David Crosswell wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/04/13 16:23, Christine Kent wrote:
>>>
>>> The reality for many on this list is that we are getting old, and it is
>>> futile to ignore that age is a very significant factor in overall
>>> discrimination patterns, at least as significant as gender or race.
>>> However, those of us who know very well that discrimination is a major
>>> factor in employment patterns never dare discuss it in a public forum
>>> because none of us wants to admit that we may be having trouble getting
>>> enough work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How do we counter whichever discrimination we are facing? In my case it is
>>> age and to a lesser extent, gender. For all of us it is price, whether that
>>> is the employment of juniors as "good enough" or offshoring. With so much
>>> of our work being outsourced to India, we are facing a very real issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is true, but it needs more analysis than just identification.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> With the `age' factor, there are three aspects in a potential employer's
>>> mind:
>>>
>>> - staid inflexibility. Which may be a reality and quite often is.
>>> Can an employer afford to pay out for the time to discover whether s/he
>>> has
>>> an exception to the rule on this occasion?
>>> - experience. Which has to be paid for.
>>> - over qualified. And is this person going to content to stay for
>>> longer than an initial period, even if they have no other market option?
>>>
>>> Outsourcing is a market strategy to drop the local price.
>>> Not all work can be. Especially not work that needs to be constantly
>>> referenced with SMEs.
>>> Not all of that can be done via the 'Net.
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> Of course one might also suggest that a probably-incompetent employer
>> might also have three similar aspects (aka stereotyes) in mind for younger
>> applicants in the "age" factor category
>>
>> + lack of attention span, likelihood of worktime lost through
>> alcohol excesses and sickies. Can exceptions be detected?
>> + lack of experience which leads to mistakes resulting in loss of
>> productivity
>> + under qualified. Is this person going to be employable without
>> requiring excessive damage or supervision?
>>
>> Incompetent and dishonest managers and employers might use silly
>> stereotypes in just about any direction... including race, sex and
>> religious discrimination. They're incompetent because their criteria
>> based on stereotyping are not merely inefficient as recruiting practice
>> (let's leave aside morality for the present) but also risk some
>> nasty consequences. The reality is, of course, that these silly
>> stereotypes are most likely to be applied when work opportunities are
>> shrinking.
>>
>> But the answer is not, as you appear to suggest, to find a way for
>> people to pretend they're not black or for them to meekly just head off and
>> find jobs "suitable" for black people. (s/black/aged s/aged/young)
>>
>> And having set aside the morality briefly, let's take it into account
>> here. If employers and managers get benefits in their business from the
>> rule of law (as they all do) they might consider a requirement to
>> follow obligations under that system, like obeying the law.
>>
>> Might it not be slightly relevant in here somewhere that the practices
>> you suggest are involved for employers are actually ILLEGAL?
>>
>> The laws are weak in application, as equality laws were in the world of
>> the Alabamas. So the laws need to be strengthened. Governments,
>> employers who bleat about baby boomers being a drag on the economy need to
>> have it pointed out to them that failure to strengthen and enforce the
>> law and failures to obey it are within their areas of responsibility.
>>
>> If they want us to keep off their welfare system and stop being a drain
>> on superannuation funds, there's a simple answer: do what you say you
>> have a responsibility to do: avoid discrimination, and allow us to work,
>> raising the barriers that prevent us from doing it.
>>
>> No, stuff it! All these arguments that I should just go quietly to the
>> back of the bus are unacceptable.
>>
>> -PeterM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bob Trussler
>
Other related posts:
