Interview: SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg on Engineering, Maternity Leave, Equal Pay & More

Mar 3, 2020
by Sarah Moore  
Isabeau Courdurier on top with EWS podium newcomers Raphaela Richter and Miranda Miller by her side


SRAM outlined their commitments to pursue gender parity in the sport of cycling yesterday ahead of International Women's Day on Sunday, March 8th.

We spoke with SRAM CEO Ken Lousberg about why SRAM felt this was an important announcement to make and to find out what the company is truly doing to increase gender parity in cycling.





What are some of the challenges that you’ve had hiring women in the bike industry?


Our number one challenge would be engineering. Engineering is the number one position that we have at SRAM other than manufacturing positions in our factories. Frankly, there just aren't enough women graduates from the engineering programs.

We try to work with some of the universities that have good STEM programs to make women aware of what we do and get the ones that are graduating to consider SRAM first. But I think that’s number one issue we face today.


How many women are there currently working at your company?


I don’t know the exact number off the top of my head, but globally it’s about 40%.


What’s the most senior role that a woman holds at SRAM?


The most senior role at SRAM would be one of our Board of Directors, is Nicole Piasecki, a former executive at Boeing. As for someone that comes into work every day at SRAM, our Vice President of HR, Eileen Mulry, is a direct report of mine, and she would be the most senior woman.


Photo Credit amp Permission from SRAM - Sara Jarrell and Leigh Donovan lead a bike clinic while at Whistler. Jarrell will be joining Roam Bike Fest to lead multi-day clinics on bike tuning suspension brake setup and more.


How do you see this changing in the next couple years? Do you think we’ll see more women in more senior roles in the coming years?


We’re always trying to add more diversity to our team. We definitely try hard. We’ve made good changes, like requiring all interview candidate pools to have at least one woman in them. We’re making progress so I think it will change.


9th for local hero Miranda Miller


Have you done an analysis on pay at SRAM? Do you pay female employees an equal wage to their male counterparts for similar roles?


We do an internal review every year to make sure that we’re paying people appropriately and fairly and then every time we have an opening we do the same thing. We also don’t ask for past salary history as we felt this could perpetuate the problem if it was preexisting.

We pay people for the job not based on what they got paid before or what gender they are. I think we do a really good job of that.


How can we come together as an industry and create equality in it? How do we get more women working in the bike industry?


That’s a good question. Our theory would be, if we have more women working at SRAM, they’ll have better ideas of how to get more women riding bikes. So we start there, trying to make a difference with that.


Myriam Nicole - Morzine Photo by Jb Liautard jbliautard


What are your corporate policies at SRAM for women who want to take maternity leave?


We’re a global company and every country has different policies around maternity leave. Obviously we follow the local guidelines and laws and meet the minimum, but we try to do better than that.

I would say the US probably has one of the less generous maternity policies, so we do more than is required in the US. I’m sure we could do more. We have a SRAM Women’s Leadership Committee that helps us navigate that: what do the women at SRAM want, what helps them? We make our culture really open and when we have a good idea we try it.


How do you think that taking maternity leave can affect a woman’s trajectory through your company?


I personally think it has little to no impact. We have some awesome moms and they’re awesome at their job. We miss them when they’re gone and we’re happy when they’re back.


You’ve worked around the world, how do you see opportunities being different for women in North America compared to other places you have lived?


I spent a lot of time in China and I was the President of a pretty large business and half of my leadership team were women. Roughly half of the population of the rest of the team were women. I was talking to the women on my team and told them that we really struggle to do this in the US and yet here it seems so easy, what’s the difference? One of the women who reported to me said ‘Well women are half the population, why wouldn’t we be half the team?’ It was just so easy there.

I also worked in Germany for quite a while, and I worked in Switzerland for a fair amount of time. As far as women represented on teams I had there, I would say they were more like the US. I don’t the exact reason, but it’s clear women can do the job, so if they want to do it, why shouldn’t they?


I’ve read that you have three sons, how is the world they are growing up in different to the world you grew up in?


I think they’re probably growing up in a better, more open world. Unfortunately, it feels like sometimes it’s a little more dangerous world too though. But they don’t see colour, they don’t see man/woman as starkly as when I was raised, which is super cool. The school my oldest son went to in China, I think there were kids from 68 different countries, so they didn’t even think of colour or accents or any of that. They were just kids that played together.

To me, the coolest thing ever would be to if he and his five best friends back then, who are from five different countries, become the President of their country. That would be the path to world peace. Because they just see each other as people, they don’t see the differences. I think that would be pretty cool.


How do you think we can increase participation in women’s mountain bike racing?


I think that the funnel that feeds racing has to get bigger. We need more women mountain biking to get more women racing. For us, we have more pro women road cyclists that we sponsor than we have men that we sponsor. But the funnel is bigger. There are more women that ride road bikes than competitively mountain bike.

It’s that equation where we need more people feeding into the funnel. What we do, with Sara Jarrell, is we have the SRAM Women’s Program where we want to introduce women to mountain biking and then once they’re in it we help them with training clinics to help them get better, feel more comfortable, and have fun. Programs like that are good. I wish more people would do them.

I think NICA is another great example. That’s a great feeder for future women. Kate Courtney, one of our sponsored athletes, she got introduced to mountain biking through NICA. NICA has their GRIT program that we’re excited to be helping with. I think things like that are how we get more women on mountain bikes and then that eventually leads to more women racing mountain bikes.


Not the race Kate Courtney wanted. She ll be hoping to step it up come Sunday as the points spread is getting larger.


How do you think we will start to have more equal pay for women athletes?


That’s something that we as an industry, we need to do it. We were pretty successful at helping make that happen at Crankworx but we need more actions like that.


What are your goals with the video that you're releasing on March 2nd and speaking about getting more women into the bike industry?


I think it takes all of us to make changes like this. Everyone benefits. It just feels like it makes so much sense, but it’s a real effort and we need to do it together.


With one round t got Isabeau Courdurier has wrapped up the world title


Are you hoping that other bike brands and other manufacturers in the bike industry will follow your lead on this?


I don’t even know if we’re leading, but yeah for sure. I would love that. If all of us are doing it together, it has to have a bigger impact than 5 or 6 companies doing it. All of us are smarter than one of us and a critical mass can have a huge impact. It would be great if everyone did it.


301 Comments

  • 245 18
 Would you rather:

1. Read this article
2. Go directly to the comments to read the dumpster fire
  • 129 95
 You're obviously a really busy guy, but there's no reason that reading the article and writing a comment need to be mutually exclusive...
  • 115 9
 @sarahmoore: I think that you've taken his comment too literally
  • 24 0
 @sarahmoore: but it is tradition!
  • 8 3
 Still Reeling About Money?
  • 133 21
 @sarahmoore: Did you just assume my gender?
  • 22 80
flag kleinblake (Mar 3, 2020 at 11:57) (Below Threshold)
 @denson-91: don’t be a tool
  • 31 5
 Kleinblake..lighten up
  • 89 16
 3. Buy Shimano products because you don't like a millionaire CEO's clever marketing scheme and think he should focus on designing better value products.
  • 8 1
 2.
  • 13 28
flag zaalrottunda (Mar 3, 2020 at 12:16) (Below Threshold)
 @kleinblake: you spelled "liberal" wrong.
  • 11 15
flag scbullit36 (Mar 3, 2020 at 12:20) (Below Threshold)
 @sarahmoore: Ha! Well played...
  • 9 16
flag sleemans12 (Mar 3, 2020 at 12:22) (Below Threshold)
 @denson-91: It's pretty clear in your profile, let's not assume anything here
  • 40 7
 @sleemans12: Pinkbike profiles are a tool of the patriarchy, I hope SRAM can fix them to be more equitable
  • 29 13
 @sarahmoore: You need to get to know your readers better.
  • 16 1
 @jcklondon: too accurate. If this was real, they would just do it organically. Buying ad space across a bunch of websites is just a joke and would be quite patronizing to me.

In the mean time I’ll just be busy throwing another SX shifter in the ocean.
  • 71 4
 @bonfire: I read a reddit piece once about how a companies advertising changes radically once they reach a monopoly status. Typically most companies advertise about features, benefits and product directly. Once a company reaches a monopoly it becomes more concerned about controlling public perception of the brand rather than just selling their newest gadget. Sram seems to be crossing the line. For them to advertise about a change to enforce woman's equality would directly imply that equality has not been accounted for in the past. It also implies other competitive companies might not care about equality. Its about controlling public perception not real meaningful change.
  • 15 16
 Um. Read the article. It's nice to see some focus on this stuff in the mountain bike world. It's almost like the real world where more and more emphasis on this is occurring all the time.
  • 5 0
 but is it against the law?
  • 5 0
 Dumpster fire!
  • 11 1
 @Mntneer: Mansplaining!
  • 5 1
 @ldhbaker: why read the article when you can just go straight to the dumpster fire
  • 29 16
 @sarahmoore: Just so sick and tired of this SJW crap being shoved down my throat. Rather comment than have to read another one of these pointless articles.
  • 4 0
 @jcklondon:
Who do you think runs Shimano? Seriously curious?
  • 6 5
 @sarahmoore: Wow! Didn’t expect all those responses did yaSmile ? Good article. Well done.
  • 8 8
 @AntiGrav87: always read it dude, no matter how stupid. We can't win the fight with ignorance, it is only by a total understanding of our enemies thought process and a routing out of all their misappropriated ideas and ideological fallacies that we will eventually establish rational truth.

I watch CNN and Bill Maher all the time, not because I like them, but I want to know how my opponent thinks.
  • 12 6
 Straight to the comments... Never disappoints with these SJW articles.
  • 117 6
 I heard somewhere that only 28.99% of engineers at SRAM are female
  • 33 0
 that's such a rand-dub fact to know, right?
  • 16 44
flag GillKill22 (Mar 3, 2020 at 11:20) (Below Threshold)
 @HCorey Thats bc males grossly outweigh females with engineering degrees..
  • 26 1
 Last count they had a super boost to their employment figures with 157 women smashing it
  • 33 0
 @GillKill22: Did you just call me fat?
  • 15 8
 i think that's because female engineers seem to devote their labour to solving problems, rather than creating them
  • 5 0
 @telephunke: ........idk if that was a really clever sram pun in there somewhere or you're changing gears on us and making engineering jokes
  • 6 6
 @telephunke: So you're saying the men are out there creating jobs?
  • 4 1
 I also heard that there's less females at sram cause they can't grow moustaches...
  • 1 3
 "@GillKill22: Did you just call me fat?"

No, but why I have I not fallen in love with you yet?


SHIT!!! Now I will never get a television show. Damn, damn it all to hell.
  • 2 7
flag jdb06 (Mar 3, 2020 at 20:13) (Below Threshold)
 @RoadStain: your mother should have swallowed you
  • 115 15
 So here is the disconnect. Most major tech companies, like Google, Apple, etc, shout how pro woman, pro 2SLGBTQ+ they are, etc. But we know its all 100% BS when they side with the CCP over Hong Kong, support repressive regimes in the Middle East where gays are literally executed, etc. They do this because they think it will improve their public image and therefore improve profitability.

Now I'm not comparing SRAM to these companies, IDK how ethical they actually are, but probably not evil (like Google). However, whatever advertising/PR agency is consulting them all to be "woke" needs to be fired. Look at Gillettes stock after their disastrous "toxic masculinity" ad campaign. Look at the more recent Star Wars movies. The Marvel comics from about 7 years ago that tried to have SJW heroines. This philosophy doesn't sell product.

No one wants to be preached at. No one wants the company that makes their brakes to solve all the worlds problems. We want good products at a competitive price.
  • 23 4
 That should be on a poster and sold in office supply stores.
  • 20 7
 It's the same hypocrisy on PinkBike with everyone getting up in arms about deforestation but give zero fucks about carbon content pollution.
  • 11 0
 @scary1: office supply stores? What are those? You must mean amazon.
  • 3 2
 @zaalrottunda: we should definitely revisit that, and this time PB bring facts researched, not tripe.
  • 38 5
 @gonzoracing: I think you're asking too much of the PB team. But it's an unfortunate trend in all society, "I'm willing to do the bare minimum of altruistic activities so long as I don't have to change my lifestyle."
That's why people on PB are "pro" environment even though they buy new gear at a rate that would make the cell phone industry ejaculate with anticipation.
Same reason why everyone on Reddit is "pro HK" by posting supportive articles about Hong kong, but continue to use Reddit which gives a portion of it's profit to pro China.
Same reason everyone "loves Greta" and think that being on her side helps the environment, while they go on mindlessly consuming, travelling, and spending like they invented the concept.
It's all a farce.
  • 36 13
 I got to the third question, groaned, and came to the comments. What a BS article. Women in senior management roles? Really? How about competent senior managers in senior management roles? Isn't that more important? What proportion of SRAM's profits come from men? What proportion of those men really enjoys being preached at about equality?
  • 14 27
flag jaame (Mar 3, 2020 at 15:39) (Below Threshold)
 @zaalrottunda: I'm recycling less now because every time I throw something recyclable in the bin I feel like i'm giving Greta a metaphorical slap. I don not like being preached to by 15 year olds.
  • 14 4
 @jaame: Idk if that's the right move mate. How about you keep recycling to stick it to her? From what I can tell, simply "doing" is flying in the face of the movement since so much of the current "activism" in our age is just bitching in front of a microphone or cell phone.

Be clean, be kind, just don't buy bullshit when it's being peddled. Keep recycling just don't listen to little whiny kids with any level or respect.
  • 5 8
 @jaame: I can answer that, as someone with an "E and O" in a former title. NONE. The only ones who appreciate it are people who are hell-bent on being a victim of something, anything. There are reasons that I go out of my way to not higher folks of a certain demographic. Simply, not worth the drama (drag queens being #1 on the list, drama drama drama....and Rupaul quotes).
  • 10 1
 @zaalrottunda: Bet the drag queens know how to spell.
  • 6 7
 @Eatsdirt: sure....LGBQRSTUV...what ever the hell. We simply keep them out of clinical environments. Plus, they create undue drama for the rest of the staff. But, protected classes hate realities.
  • 4 3
 @Eatsdirt: that actually wan't a spelling issue it was a vocabulary issue.
  • 5 2
 @zaalrottunda: Ok, vocabulary if you must.

@RoadStain Don't care, just think it's funny how a guy who's quick to let people know he's supposedly worked at an executive level... would "higher folks".
  • 5 4
 @Eatsdirt: I've worked with several CEO's and CFO's and can tell you with 100% confidence that grammatical errors and syntax are by no means an indicator of their capabilities.
  • 10 1
 @zaalrottunda: I've also worked with many executives of different titles, and I can tell you with 100% confidence that a good portion of them are egocentric blowhards. It might even be a required attribute in certain cases.
  • 2 4
 @zaalrottunda: Hard to argue this one, u nailed it on the head.
  • 2 0
 Massage knees much?
  • 1 0
 How did my comment turn into a debate about drag queens and CEOs and spelling bees
  • 1 3
 @Eatsdirt: money makes egocentric blowhards of most of us friend.
  • 14 6
 @zaalrottunda:
Word! My eyes literally roll right out of my head when I see this crap. This is nothing but women demanding to be put on an even higher pedestal where they don’t have to be as skilled or competent as male their counterparts but should be given jobs over them because (insert lame SJW nonsense here). I work in nursing and I listen to women complaining that their engineer husbands make more than they do. I always say “well I guess you should have gotten into engineering then eh”. Which then descends into a bunch of feminist nonsense where apples & oranges are somehow the same and the patriarchy blah blah blah. And then a lesbian coworker will try to tell you that she is more man than you because she tiled her bathroom floor.
  • 9 3
 @Gibbersticks: too funny!

My advice to anyone, not just women is this. If you want to earn more, don't have any kids, commit yourself to work at the expense of other areas of your life, and don't have qualms about shafting co workers. That's a good way to get on in your career and be wealthier in life.
If you don't want to do those things, just accept that you're never going to make a lot of chien.
  • 95 15
 Let's talk about my malfunctioning Guide brake levers you refused to warranty.
  • 98 3
 This would have been a great question to sneak in.

Example - "Do you think that improving the employment and pay ratios of women to men in your company would help you to produce good brakes, or perhaps a dropper post with a basic level of reliability?"
  • 10 0
 @TheRaven: the reverb has literally been the fuel to my nightmares for over a year now.
  • 9 0
 Hell yeah! The Race Face Effect (wink wink). There needs to be more opportunity for us (consumers) to hold manufacturers and corporations feet to the fires when we have been ripped off. It sucks when there are minimal viable options in the market and you feel like you're forced into a decision, especially when ALL bikes are specced with one of two options (FWIW I have turned my back on all sram and shimano brakes - currently loving my hayes Dominions).

The keyboard attack on pinkbike comments section on Race Face was awesome, and it was definitely noticed. You saw how sheepish race face was acting in the comments and how quick they were to reach out to individuals! Keep it coming.
  • 16 1
 @Trudeez: Yup. paying $400 for a dropper only to have it fail half way into your second season, then just to find out that they scrapped the design because they knew it was defective is a real kick in the balls. But I honestly expected more from SRAM. Now f*ck Race Face, f*ck SRAM, and f*ck any manufacturer that thinks their R&D department is their first round of consumers paying full price instead of testing the designs themselves.
  • 34 3
 For Sram, gender parity means ignoring customer complaints from men and women equally.
  • 6 2
 @chriskneeland: hey they couldn't manufacture a glyde bushing groove to save their lives so they basically got skf to engineer a basic dynamic seal... when a company cant produce a basic groove you know they aren't really going to be great at much.

Easily one of the worst products in cycling.
  • 1 4
 @chriskneeland: who actually makes a dropper post that’s actually got a reputation for reliably? Every single dropper post in existence is total garbage. The whole bike industry needs to sort it out.
  • 4 0
 Second owner? Did you personally submit the warranty claim? Is it maybe your shop that's screwing you. I have not had a single claim denied on guide levers...even when they weren't the original owner(though the warranty terms say you need to be). How old are these brakes you speak of? What's their production date code? Quite simply, I find it hard to believe that sram didnt warranty them...there may be more contributing factors, like a shitty shop....
  • 4 0
 @thenotoriousmic: The Transfer and OneUp are good posts. Certainly not perfect, but solid.
  • 7 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Fox Transfer. Ask any shop that sells them. Nearly a zero percent warranty rate. It's also what Race Face and 9point8 have licensed since their failed intro designs.
  • 2 0
 @chriskneeland: yup. have had zero issues with mine. 1500 miles on it.
  • 2 0
 @thenotoriousmic: the £89 brand X from chain reaction. Far superior to any of the big manufacturers expensive ones.
  • 2 0
 @skidmarkbro: your bank account will feel the "Reverberations Forever" Bah hahahaha....
  • 63 0
 What are your corporate policies at SRAM for men who want to take paternity leave?
  • 5 1
 This
  • 24 2
 shh shh shh this isn't about male equality it is about women's equality.
  • 9 0
 @MattyBoyR6: Often countries have maternity leave that becomes such a no brainer that it makes sense for women to leave the workforce for the year or so that the leave allows. This has both direct and indirect effects on the woman's career and future earnings and has been shown to be a significant factor in the earnings gap between men and women in these countries.

I think it's wrong to say it's unfair to men with a 'male equality' comment as it really puts women behind the curve in the long run. If anything, the lack of paternity leave in certain countries is potentially worse for women.

Imagine a system where a family gets 12 months of parental leave taken in 50/50 shifts between the mother and father. Probably better for both in terms of career and also better for both in terms of getting to spend some time with their child and contributing to the function of the family at home Smile
  • 5 1
 @shlotch: here in the US that no brainer maternity leave is usually called the high cost of daycare. The cost of daycare to a person's income ratio is so close in some instances it makes more sense for one parent to stay home, at least for me it did with 2 kids.
We did see the unfortunate consequences of a delayed career and then the kids' mom playing catch up.

Also my initial comment was meant more tongue in cheek. But still the discussion of paternity leave only seems to be brought up when maternity leave is, and almost always seems to be an us against them situation, male vs female. Maybe it should be rebranded completely under family leave, taking the pa & ma out of it.
  • 5 0
 @MattyBoyR6:

All fair points! Daycare is the killer here as well. It's like "do I work all day to pay that money for a stranger to raise my kid or not."

I totally agree that paternity leave should be part of this conversation as well. And it should be talked about in how it will benefit the careers of women.
  • 49 8
 This is a crazy thought, but maybe, just maybe, most women don't want to manufacture, engineer or sell bicycles components.
  • 9 2
 You are not wrong
  • 17 6
 most men don't either. what's your point?
  • 13 3
 @pmhobson: Well maybe, just a slight possibly, this is reflected in the men to women ratio working at Sram. I know, its a crazy thought.
  • 21 22
 @shimanodx: Or maybe, just maybe, the male-to-female ratio of the SRAM work force reflects larger societal forces and trends that discourage women from pursuing careers that people assume only men want or are good at.

I know. It's a similarly crazy thought.
  • 4 1
 And you're the authority on this? Some might say the issue is a little more complex than this...
  • 19 1
 last local DH race I attended had 115 guys and 12 women. When I was in primary skidding and jumping of curbs guess how many girls were around... exactly, 0. That might have something to do with the number of women in the industry, not sure.
  • 7 1
 I visited Hope once and noticed that robots were doing 90 percent of the work....
  • 13 2
 @fssphotography: how many of those robots identified as female?
  • 2 12
flag shimanodx (Mar 3, 2020 at 18:13) (Below Threshold)
 @pmhobson: Well that's just crazy over thinking.

But here's a forethought. Just maybe there is a correlation link between the higher rates of male suicide is due to that fact that more women are entering, what was the stereotypical male dominated workforce, leaving less jobs for ... wait for it.... Men. This can even also lead to relationship breakdowns due to males not being able to fulfill their duties as the provider of the family, or women who think they can do better.

You know some males might even go as far as saying that they prefer not to work with or train females colleges due to the "me too" movement has left them vulnerable to being subjected to an sexual harassment claims against them.

But then again those things wouldn't really happen in real life would they?
  • 12 2
 @shimanodx: If any human is considering suicide because of the success of the other gender, rather than blame the other gender, I would strongly encourage that person to seek out the necessary psychiatric and medical care.
  • 5 4
 @pmhobson: Isn't blaming the other gender all feminists are really good for?
  • 10 7
 @ismasan: exactly, fact is women are different to men and they are born that way, put toddlers in a room with a selection of toys, cars, building blocks, plastic babies, dollies etc. The boys play with the blocks the girls go for the plastic babies. We live in a generation that’s forcing equality with no thought to what people really actually like to do, just we should do it equally, make the same number of nurses, male & female, make the same number of engineers male and female. It’s just nonsense - women are generally more caring than blokes and make better nurses, blokes are generally more interested in machines. It would be amazing in some respects if girls liked the same things as blokes biking, cars, motorbikes etc - can you imagine every holiday becoming a riding trip having fun rather than the compromise of sat being bored next to a pool for a week. Fact is they just don’t on the whole. I’ve tried so hard over the 17 years I’ve been with my wife to get her out on the bike or come to the pub, we manage maybe once a year out on the bike and it has to be flat, wide paths, safe etc she just doesn’t bikes. I can get her down the pub but she only wants the old one or two drinks not 5 pints. She’s a stereotypical woman loves her soft furnishings, having the house look nice, flowers in the garden, a nice meal out, relaxing in front of the tv, group gym classes etc and that’s just fine. Not sure I’d want to be with a female version of myself. I’m sure there are good biological reasons why women are fundamentally different to men.
  • 2 3
 What is crazy is that you have to say "this is crazy thought". You are perfectly logical and rational.
  • 1 1
 You're entering into Jame Damore territory there, and look where it got him. He even listed ways to encourage women to get into tech jobs and it didn't matter, he still pointed out the facts and for that you get cancelled.
  • 46 13
 Well done for being inclusive and encouraging more people to join the industry
  • 33 5
 Companies that hire according to race and gender strike me as inherently racist and sexist. Companies that minimize or re-use manufacturing waste are inherently reducing their carbon footprint and benefiting society as a whole. The science doesn't lie. It's not wrong to want more female, POC, LGBT involvement in the industry but I think that's a community outreach initiative, not a hiring practice.
  • 3 2
 Thank you for having a brain and being vocal with intelligent thought. #bless
  • 35 8
 So much stunning, so much brave...
  • 27 4
 Some key take aways that mostly, have nothing to do with gender(the whole point of this article), but also point to not only SRAM being behind the times, but also probably just being not a great place to work:

1."We do an internal review every year to make sure that we’re paying people appropriately and fairly and then every time we have an opening we do the same thing. We also don’t ask for past salary history as we felt this could perpetuate the problem if it was preexisting."

AKA - Doesn't matter if your a male, female, or other kin, we will for sure paying you below market value, GUARANTEED(but we're a bike company so we're totally hip and cool to work for).

2. "How do you think that taking maternity leave can affect a woman’s trajectory through your company?"

The fact that their trying to justify the state of their maternity leave as being better than what the US requires, but not even broaching the topic of paternity leave that would also include fathers, should tell you all you need to know.

3."Are you hoping that other bike brands and other manufacturers in the bike industry will follow your lead on this?


I don’t even know if we’re leading, but yeah for sure."

Well, I guess I have to give them some credit for being semi-self-aware.
  • 6 1
 re: 2 - didn't provide specifics about the maternity policy either, hmmm...
  • 6 13
flag RoadStain (Mar 3, 2020 at 18:00) (Below Threshold)
 @dmondave: my policy? Avoid newly wed women and 18-29 for critical positons. Maternity leave costs industy into the billions.
  • 7 0
 I'm gonna disagree on point 1. Salary history and salary negotiation have been shown to be a major contributor to the remaining wage gap existing between men and women. If you're interviewing at a company (in this case SRAM) and you have a history of earnings and know what is fair in your field, you are free to either accept a gernerous offer or reject an insulting one.

I think you may be confusing Germany with your country and with my own - both of which have been exploiting falling wages.
  • 3 1
 @shlotch: That is exactly what I do not get. Someone accepts a position at a wage that they agree to....then they bitch about it.

Not infrequently we will have a person interview and ask them what they are wanting to get paid (notice I did not say EARN). In general, a new college grad will be delusional and throw out a number 50% high, women will in general give a low number.

Most folks are seriously at the mindset of "give me a job" even if I do not make what I want to make. Women however tend to really low ball themselves. All things (capability wise), no employer in their right mind pays someone more than they have to, more than they need to or more than then market will bear.

It is stunning the number of kids from college who get upset in their first day or two of "work" and get very upset they are not allowed to have their cell phone on their person. We have seriously had more people leave and never come back for just that reason (that at no facebook on company systems - it is simply blocked)
  • 2 1
 @shlotch: OK, I don't necessarily agree with you, but we can agree to disagree. What gets me is I can also pretty much guarantee that SRAM will in no way be upfront about their salary ranges, they sure as hell aren't listing them on the offerings/career site, and realistically you won't get them until the very end of their interview/hiring process which is just another indicator of a sub par employer.
  • 1 2
 @pbfan08: Sub par? Huh? Good thing I am not interviewing you....we would already know what party you are registered with, what you do on line and check out your cars bumper stickers....plus we wont tell you the exact figure up front.
  • 1 0
 @pbfan08: Yeah "employers" who don't list the salary range on the job ad are such a f*cking waste of time. I know some people are in urgent need of a new job but otherwise I don't get why anyone would apply without this key piece of information, spend the time preparing and going to interviews only to be given a laughable number at the end and have to start the process again with someone else. I make a point of never responding to ads like that and telling headhunters/recruiters to sod off if they approach me and don't know/want to say what the offer is. My time is too precious to deal with morons. I swear if I ever get asked in an interview "what I want to earn" instead of being told openly what they budgeted for the position I will bitchslap the interviewer - what is this a f*cking game or grown up people trying to do business? Luckily the UK seems quite civilised in this respect.
  • 24 4
 If mtn biking in general wants more inclusivity they need to work on getting more black people into the sport. I see ladies biking all the time, but can count on 0 fingers the amount of black riders I've seen. It's literally the whitest sport since skiing.

www.singletracks.com/uncategorized/newsflash-the-sport-of-mountain-biking-lacks-diversity
  • 15 5
 why is there some sort of push for including any gender or ethnicity? If black people want to ride there is nothing stating they can't, maybe they just think it's lame?

The push for being inclusive is such a uniquely first world white person problem. At the basic levels it's a necessary requirement for a fair and homogeneous society but at this level it's ridiculous.
  • 2 2
 @zaalrottunda: totally agree
  • 10 0
 @zaalrottunda: the simple reason to get more diversity is more people to buy. Women don't ride, that is 50% of the population not buying. Only white males? Well sh*t that is a lot of people left over that could buy and consume.
  • 3 0
 Wakeboarding and surfing are still very white, at least in the US. I have no clue about the rest of the world. One guy in our wakeboard was a black Mormon. Now that's an outlier.
  • 3 0
 It seem they are busy playing basketball and football..
  • 3 3
 @zaalrottunda: Black people really like bmx and these giant wheelie bmx bikes. Hell, it's pretty common knowledge that white people are more outdoorsy in general. I don't think that reflects anything really, just a difference in interest.
  • 8 4
 @MattyBoyR6: How? Do you really think if pinkbike does an article on riders of color, or Trek releases an ad with a black lady on a Session, black people are going to suddenly develop an interest in MTB?

I find all these "Let's Get X into Cycling" efforts really dumb. I just don't think you can socially engineer more black people to like mountain biking. I think you grow the sport by sharing sick youtube and twitter videos of people shredding on bikes, and that will motivate more people to shred on bikes.

Same thing with women. I just don't see a woman going "Wow, the logo is pink now, time to buy a mountain bike" or "Sram made a statement about women in the workplace, time buy new brakes."
  • 5 1
 @ClaytonMarkin: Well though I am not for manufacturing or forcing diversity, which I thought I was clear on, but I guess not, I do believe that yes if there is an ad with a black person riding it could get more black people interested. I base this on interviews I have seen in which black people or girls said that after seeing someone like them doing something that they hadn't thought of doing before they could now see themselves doing it. No I do not have those links to those interviews. Making a logo pink, eh maybe but changing a Quicksilver logo to a Roxy logo sure worked for surfing. Lets see how about Suave shampoo for men or Nair for men? Lady Gillette? There are so many products out there that change the logo or add a for 'gender' to the product and it is no different than the previous already in use product except color or packaging.
Thought of another example are the movies Biker Boyz and Torque. Before those movies came out I saw and new only one black sport bike rider. After the movie there were many and they followed the biker gang protocols of the movie to a comical level.
Again I'm not for the forced diversity. Id rather see a more organic growth, one from awesome videos or word of mouth and friends talking. But I am not in the business and my paycheck doesn't depend on market growth. Those that do see a majority of the population as potential customers as soon as they can get sold that they want a bike.
Hmm I wonder what Reggie Miller & Elliot Jackson think about the subject.
  • 3 1
 Why is society so hell bent on making people do things that that don't want to do just so whatever segment being discussed can give themselves a pat on the back?
  • 1 1
 @MattyBoyR6: well there is a huge difference between trying to increase your market share/consumer base, and demanding that more women are employed at executive levels and receive "equal" pay.
  • 1 1
 @Gibbersticks: because we are a "melting pot".
  • 3 1
 @zaalrottunda: "but I don't want to go in that pot, I want to go in that pot over there", "too bad this pot hasn't met their woke quota so you going in here".
  • 25 4
 Its not about whats between your legs. Its about who does the best job. That person gets the job.
  • 10 5
 nor what color you are. golden rules and capitalism has led to unbelievable outcomes and opportunity where liberty is welcomed. too many negative nellys forget all the accomplishments of poor; of colored; of rednecks; from those whom fled marxist regimes..
  • 1 1
 @jrocksdh: Rheysis!!!!!
  • 5 0
 Yet a bunch of people on this thread seem very butthurt that Sram thinks it can increase candidate quality by attracting more female candidates. If "what's between your legs" doesn't matter than why do you care so much if Sram thinks it can hire better employees with policies that attract more women?
  • 26 8
 Can pb add this type of content to the filter list. I dont need to see this crap and I feel all it does is fuel more division. So sick of this marketing bs. Just hire the most qualified applicant for the position and pay them accordingly.Diversity = less white people, an inherent racist concept.
  • 14 29
flag gemma8788 (Mar 3, 2020 at 15:21) (Below Threshold)
 "Diversity = less white people, an inherent racist concept" is one or the more ignorant things I've read on pb in a while. Please educate yourself on the history of racism and try not to think about only yourself every single second of your life. Also, stay away from those conspiracy theories. Finally, please don't respond to me, but if you feel an uncontrollable urge to do so, give it a while or I'll know you haven't taken the time to educate yourself.
  • 8 2
 @gemma8788: You don't know how to read, do you?
  • 18 13
 @gemma8788: ya the scared white dudes are everywhere.

What are they to do being attacked by women, people of color, religion, science, poor people, lgbtqs.

They are scared so they run to whatever far right personality is their favorite. Buying into the conspiracy theories feeling like they are an endangered species.

Me im not worried about a woman wanting equal pay that doesn't intimate or scare me.
Im not worried about a woman in the lead role of a star wars movie. Wtf really?
Im not worried about which bathroom a transsexual wants to use.
Im not worried about them suing me.

I am worried about some crazy f*ck with a gun thats been fed the lies and is angry and wanting to kill me or whatever group he seems to think endangers his existence or masculinity.

I am worried about dumb asses who watch other dumb f*cks like Alex Jones
and are convinced the parents of sandy hook murder victims are f*cking actors.
Resulting in them receiving death threats while they are mourning their murdered children.

Worried about alot of shit. Like a global pandemic.

Not worried women wanting equal pay.

Sorry its not high on my threat list.
  • 7 14
flag dthomp325 (Mar 3, 2020 at 19:18) (Below Threshold)
 @reverend27: ah yes. The "white man's disease" is what I like to call it. The height of entitlement when you expect to be handed everything you want in life on a silver platter and then blame some other group of people when you don't achieve it. They tend to be the ones singing the praises of "meritocracy", but are ironically terrified of actually being judged on their merits against a larger and more diverse talent pool.
  • 14 5
 @dthomp325: "when you expect to be handed everything you want in life on a silver platter and then blame some other group of people when you don't achieve it." isn't that the definition of a millennial, or anyone in the progressive left?
  • 18 1
 I think everyone has a right to equal pay and equal opportunities. But the only thing a company should be doing is hiring based on talent. I think diversification in the workplace has become an effort to hit 50/50 numbers to appease the eye of the public which doesn't necessary make any sense at all. regardless what way the scales tip, its all about getting the right people. It's like working for the Canadian government being french Canadian and part of a visible minority, its your foot in the door, how is that equality? I guess its not a perfect system, and its a hell of a lot better then it was before. How do we find that balance I guess is the question.
  • 20 3
 This is not equality of opportunity, it’s equality of outcome. Reminds me of that Kurt Vonnegut short story “Harrison Bergeron”.
  • 10 3
 dude, you nailed it. Everyone should have the same chance/opportunity...outcome is based on how talented and hard working you are.
  • 1 1
 @preach: unfortunately that is not where we are going with all this. Kurt was so on point with Harrison Bergeron. None of this is about lifting people up, it's about bringing people down to the lowest common denominator.
  • 34 15
 paid article??
  • 10 0
 Yes.
  • 10 9
 Sounds like one based on all the commie gobbledegook in the article
  • 17 1
 i don't give a shit if your male, female or whatever you want to be called i just want my bike parts to be made good
  • 32 18
 Female wage gap has been proven innacurate so many times up and down it's not even funny.
  • 6 5
 Im sure you can provide some links to your claim.
  • 5 4
 Sources? I've generally read the opposite, so am genuinely curious where you see this.
  • 12 3
 @reverend27: i mean, if it's that hard for you to google...
www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
that's a good breakdown of the what and why.
Basically the issue is that people compare apples to oranges. All of mens pay vs ALL of womens pay, comes out in favor of men. But when you look at factors like do they have kids, schooling, experience, did they negotiate for a better wage, hours worked, and other factors then the real number shrivels into insignificance.
  • 7 5
 @ldhbaker: www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap

even this source, using the somewhat dishonest method of measuring the gap, reported that the disparity was closer to 82%. But again, that is ignoring a bunch of contributing factors. It comes down to details, and the MSM and progressive leftists hate details, data, stats, etx.
  • 4 3
 @zaalrottunda: guess it comes down to what you think a acceptable level of inequality is.
Is 2% on every dollar acceptable to you?
  • 9 4
 @zaalrottunda:
In 1918, women could not inherit property on the same terms as men. The Law of Property Act 1922 changed that and meant a husband and wife could inherit each other's property.
Legislation passed four years later meant women could finally hold and dispose of property on the same terms as men.

Women were unable to serve on a jury or as a magistrate until the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 was passed. However, Juries would remained overwhelmingly male over the next 50 years before rules concerning jury qualification were reformed in the 1970s.

It wasn’t until 1975 that women could open a bank account in their own name. Single women still couldn't apply for a loan or credit card in their own name without a signature from their father, even if they earned more, as recently as the mid-Seventies.
Working women were also refused mortgages in their own right in the Seventies, unless they could secure the signature of a male guarantor.
A 2011 report, by The Institute for Public Policy Research, found evidence of discrimination against businesswomen by banks still existing today. It also found an unlawful denial of fair access to mortgages on the basis of pregnancy or maternity leave.

Women could be refused service for spending their own money in a pub up until a law change in 1982. In the 1970s women could legally be refused the right to go drink unaccompanied.

The Sex Discrimination Removal Act 1919 changed the law on women being disqualified from certain professions on the grounds of sex.
It gave women access to the legal profession and accountancy for the first time and meant they could also hold any civil or judicial office or post.

The first woman to be called to the Bar in England in 1922 and the first woman to be awarded the degree of Doctor of Civil Law in Oxford in 1923.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 made it illegal to discriminate against women in work, education and training.

A strike by 187 female workers at a Ford car factory in Dagenham in 1968 was instrumental in the passing of the 1970 Equal Pay Act. The machinists walked out and went on strike for three weeks in protest against their male colleagues earning 15 per cent more than them.

A 2017 report by the World Economic FORUM concluded it could still take another 100 years before the global equality gap between men and women disappears entirely.

In wasn't until 1929 that women became ‘persons’ in their own right under Canadian law following a ruling by the Privy Council after Canadian Magistrate Emily Murphy led the fight when lawyers challenged her right to pass sentence, arguing that as a woman she was not qualified to sit in the Senate of Canada.

Women were admitted to the London Stock Exchange for the first time in the institution’s history in 1973 following campaigning by women in the financial sector.

It wasn't until the introduction of the Contraceptive Pill, in the 1960s, that women could finally have "some" control over their own wombs.
The 1976 Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act provided legal protection to female victims of domestic violence, but it was not until 1991 that the House of Lords made rape in marriage a criminal offence in the UK. This finally allowing women the legal right to say "No" and have control of their own bodies.

In society & the workplace the playing field has always been skewed in favour of men, because in the past, men built the playing field. Well... Now women are building the playing field.

But hey... "This is discrimination" and "They're taking our jobs..."
  • 3 1
 @Dropthedebt: you left out the age of marriage consent being as young as 7 years old in 1910.

And can still happen...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
  • 6 3
 @Dropthedebt: I literally have never said that they were "taking our jobs" or even remotely implied that women shouldn't have the same access to anything and everything men have.
You wasted all that time arguing with nobody. Congratulations.
  • 6 3
 @Dropthedebt: IDK how long that took you to write and put together but you are never going to get that wasted time back buddy.

Find anywhere where I claim women are "Taking our jobs" or anywhere that I claim men are discriminated against?
My only claim has been that women should not be promoted to higher positions based on their gender, and that any financial compensation has to be weighed against factors of employment and production and not of arbitrary social or gender classes.
  • 3 2
 @reverend27: what does any of that have to do with promotion based on merit? Nobody is arguing that women have been treated unjustly in the past, I'm just saying that demanding a woman with half the experience be paid the same as a male counterpart simply based on the factor that she sits down to pee is a ridiculous way of promoting equality.
Strive for equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.
  • 4 3
 @zaalrottunda: It's not wasted time for me. All I have done is share some irrefutable facts on how women have been consistently discriminated against in the workplace & wider society over the past Century. I would hope it sheds some light on how a predominantly male led social & economic environment has impacted the way women have fought to even get on the same field as their male counterparts.
Also try to show some understanding of how statements like, "I'll gladly give women 2 cents on every dollar I make if it means I can hit one in public and not be reprimanded", however that was meant to support your message, do not help in a discussion about equality of gender opportunity. Especially when stacked up against how a large proportion of women have had to deal with levels of abuse & control over the years.
Reading some of your comments I can gauge you are an intelligent person with an excellent ability to use language in a powerful way, so I know you will understand there are equally better ways of making your points whilst bearing in mind this is an open forum on a website accommodating a high proportion younger users.
I chose not to make references to other comments that directed towards other members as it was quite clear both parties had equal disregard for Pinkbike terms and conditions when engaging each other.
tup
  • 3 2
 @Dropthedebt: Why should the sons be forced to pay for their father's sins?
  • 2 0
 @konrad1972: No-one is being forced to do anything. A private enterprise had made a choice on how they want their business to move forward.
If that is distasteful to anyone, there are plenty of other companies selling bike parts too purchase from, or work for.
I would postulate those other businesses are moving forward with a similar view.
  • 5 1
 No kidding. So if women get paid less then why would any business hire men at all if they can hire equally competent women for 25% less?
  • 6 2
 @Dropthedebt: Ok but the point was that you shared all that "info" that had zero bearing to the conversation. Nobody has made the claim that women in the past weren't unjustly treated, but that sordid history doesn't mean that we ignore common sense today.
I really don't understand what the point of your whole post was, or how it remotely pertained to the topic at hand.

And again, nothing wrong with creating equal opportunities, but there's a huge issue with creating equal outcomes. Show me somewhere in modern society (outside the military) where women are actively restricted from engaging or earning at the level of their male counterparts, solely due to their gender, and I'll join you in their condemnation.
Otherwise it just seems like you made a softball effort to change the discussion.
  • 2 3
 @zaalrottunda:
In more recent years the door has been opened for women to enter the engineering domain thanks to better guidance & a change of attitude in workplaces, and even more recently the cycling side of engineering & the wider sport. But just because the door is open it doesn't mean they know the door is even there.
I gave an example, in a previous Sram article, of how that has differed for 2 generations of my family within the highest profile of motorsport, which has been dominate by males forever. It took 2 generations for those opportunities to change despite the fact our family (dad/uncles) had been involved in World Rally since the 1960s & have "connections" in the wider motorsport family.
Personally I work in the cycling sector with boys and girls ages 7-15 years old & when we explain to them the opportunities available today within cycling, 99 out of 100 would never have though a career path available or even exists. So it is clear that initiatives that encourage greater gender participation are truly needed, despite the door being open.
tup
  • 2 4
 @zaalrottunda: sorry, I should have added...
If you do not see the relevance of the earlier information in response to your posts, you need to look harder.
  • 5 1
 @Dropthedebt: I'm sorry but there is nothing about what you posted with regards to women's history that says they should be promoted on any basis other than merit. If you think there is something in your post that directly relates to promotion/advancement of people based on gender and not meritocracy, then please provide it instead of just saying "you need to look harder".

"In more recent years the door has been opened for women to enter the engineering domain thanks to better guidance & a change of attitude in workplaces, and even more recently the cycling side of engineering & the wider sport. But just because the door is open it doesn't mean they know the door is even there."
Exactly, which is why when you look at the data provided for more "egalitarian" countries that promote greater social equity between genders, they see a trend of women STILL avoiding STEM fields in favor other pursuits. Obviously the option should be presented to them and encouraged, but to say that the lack of women participating in STEM fields is BECAUSE of years of male dominance, is again, intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate.
  • 3 3
 @zomosapien: how very shortsighted. Look at the bigger picture.
  • 2 3
 @Dropthedebt: lol, ok. If you can't defend your argument then don't lecture to anyone about being shortsighted.
  • 2 1
 @zomosapien: show me where in the above article it says women are going to be promoted over men on anything other than merit?
  • 2 2
 @Dropthedebt: you need to look harder and see the bigger picture. lol.
  • 3 1
 @zomosapien: lol ok. If you can't defend your argument then don't try to lecture someone.
  • 2 1
 @Dropthedebt: oh good, you got the joke.
  • 2 0
 @zomosapien: of course. Dude, have a really good day today a do a random act of kindness for someone. Beer
  • 20 7
 Maybe SRAM can employ more women in their product design department to sort out the crap job done so far.
  • 11 1
 What about maternity leave for men? At my company 1-2 weeks is all the father gets.
  • 13 7
 I really appreciate the promotion of equal opportunity and the recognition that the starting gates are often different. Well done SRAM for that. Equal opportunity often means programs that build talent, resource, and access to opportunity that appears above and beyond what was available to majority groups in the past. It's needed to level the playing field for minority groups or groups with a history of discrimination (intentional or unintentional). However, what I don't like is programs that emphasize equality of outcome- like Trudeau's cabinet here in Canadian politics and SRAM's forcing of one female per interview pool. Throwing a token representative of a group into an outcome is not equality. I beleive ti harms the process. It is another form of discrimination. Put that energy into programs that reduce barriers and build capacity. I want to see everyone enjoy bikes and participate in the industry across genders but believe we do that through equal opportunity, outreach and programming to target disenfranchised groups, but not through equality of outcome- which is I think what a lot of people feel a lack of fairness around.
  • 5 2
 I would be pretty pissed if I found out the only reason why I got an interview was because I fit a demographic for a quota of interviewees that needed to be filled. Wasting my time if I have no real shot at the job.
  • 3 5
 @MattyBoyR6: exactly, and the other side is I'll be looking sideways at all the women hired bc I'll be wondering if they were some of the "qualified" lot or the "quota" lot.
  • 6 1
 I would love to see some applicant numbers at Sram, or honestly many of these companies that have been in the spotlight. Are there 50/50 applicants for posted openings? Or is it 75/25 men/women? Because in my mind that changes the whole metric.

I just see more guys wanting to work for a cycling manufacturer, so if you get 50/1 male to female applicants, it seems very very unfair to hire 50/50 men and women.

I'm pretty sure schools get five times as many women applying to be teachers, so hiring 50/50 in that field seems just as flawed, just on the inverse.
  • 9 1
 I personally don't give 2 shits what the CEO has to say about ANY of this. I want to hear from the employees.
  • 7 2
 "How can we come together as an industry and create equality in it?" Why does there have to be equality in this industry? It's the bike industry. I think it's rad that there are more and more female riders. It's good for the the bike industry. It sells more bikes, which is what bike makers and component makers want to do. But equality? What difference does that make here?
  • 5 1
 These two form part of the reply to the same question...

a) "Well women are half the population, why wouldn’t we be half the team?’"
b) "It’s clear women can do the job, so if they want to do it, why shouldn’t they?"

Those of you who can truly read between the lines will understand why these positions, even though they are seen by Ken as being complementary, are in fact the real sticking point. As @SmashySmashy said on the previous Sram story...

"defining the problems that require societal intervention, and those that are driven by individual choice and talents" is the problem.....

A) and B) above, in no way guarantee a consensus to that problem. If those at the forefront do not see how these two positions are inconsistent, what hope has anyone got of achieving any kind of consensus?

Bugger.
  • 6 0
 I remember my first day at NICA tryouts: "How do you do, fellow kids?"
  • 8 6
 One question I have for those who are denouncing this kind of thing is... Why does it matter so much to you? It's a piece of equipment that goes on your bike at the end of the day, so if the next iteration of eagle is made out of silk and lipstick we'll just but something else...? Does it really bother you that much to know that a company is changing its hiring policy?
  • 30 2
 I have a big problem when the cultural norm is to accept people based on their immutable characteristics (race, gender, etc.) rather than what they have achieved. It is especially bad when this culture works its way into governments, as we have seen in the past few years, which may then turn to enforcing equal outcomes.

I wish SRAM the best and hope they do well in all of their endeavors, and I enjoy using their products.
  • 4 21
flag pmhobson (Mar 3, 2020 at 13:11) (Below Threshold)
 @denson-91: Your false dichotomy is, well, false. Try again.
  • 17 3
 Personally I don’t care. I don’t buy sram products anyway, because they tend to be broken when they come new out of the box. However, this type of article just smells a lot like marketing bs (they can also just implement these policies without the press release). I think that’s what people are trying to call out.
  • 7 3
 @pmhobson: sweet buzzword bro. 10/10 with the execution
  • 5 2
 @pmhobson: your attempt at appearing intelligent misfired....try again.
explain exactly what the benefit to society is by promoting people based on their genitalia/sexual orientation/religion/ethnicity?
  • 5 2
 @denson-91: Trying to encourage more women to get into the industry is not accepting people based on "immutable characteristics (race, gender, etc.) rather than what they have achieved". It's simply trying to attract employees from a larger talent pool.
  • 3 3
 @zaalrottunda: Well first, I don't think anyone (in the comments and article) has said that any individual should be promoted solely based on the attributes that you listed.

So with that strawman torn down I'll focus on what I think SRAM is really getting at.

Let's say you want to build a team to accomplish a highly skilled and specialized task. The world as a whole contains a limited pool of resources (humans good at the task). You're competing with other businesses to hire talent. One day you take a look around your industry and see that it's dominated by a single demographic. Let's say for the sake of argument that this single demographic represents 40% of the population of the potential work force.

So you go asking around other demographics and ask why they aren't participating in the industry, and you get answers like, "we don't feel welcome", "we aren't paid the same for the same work", "that's not what we do".

From my point of view, you, as a business, can easily address the first two answers and immediately have a competitive advantage by having a larger pool of potential talent. That's why do you what SRAM claim it wants to do.
  • 7 3
 @pmhobson: Fair enough, that was an assumption on my part. Idk how you are calling "promotion based on potential or capacity" a false dichotomy?

Once you realize the "we aren't paid the same for the same work" is a farce, you're left with "we don't feel welcome" (Ok, but very little in the article was about making the industry more welcoming, but rather more equitable for females already in it).
and "that's not what we do" which is another underlying issue of why there are so little women in STEM fields.

Let me ask you another question, If you have a company that produces a certain product, and quality of product is paramount, why would you care what ethnicity/gender/creed your work force is?
Wouldn't it serve everyone (the business, the employees, the consumers) to have the best possible product produced? If yes, then that means that the quality of the employee is derived solely on their contribution to the company. Which is typically the case. SO, assuming that SRAM's main focus is quality of products, and that there are no barriers to entry for any qualified applicants on the basis of race/gender/creed, WHAT DO YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?

If you think that women need to be more present in the SRAM family, then you either think they turn away good talent on the basis of it's femininity, or you believe they should start instituting quotas.

SRAM already provides equal wages for men and women based on their qualifications and work performed, as does 99% of companies operating today, if not, then we'll wait for the well deserved lawsuits to flow in. But the lack of said lawsuits, goes to show that at a detailed level, the claims of "not paid the same for the same work", doesn't hold up.
  • 3 3
 @dthomp325: Ok you're creating a false equivalency here though because the majority of the article is about female compensation and equality in the industry. The level at which females are compensated financially has no factual bearing on women in the cycling industry as a whole. A female CEO making more money at SRAM isn't likely going to move the needle on women going into STEM fields, or entering MTB races. You're being dishonest by acting like all these companies are ignoring female applicants. Smart business owners aren't going to surpass good talent for agreeable social statuses.
  • 4 2
 @zaalrottunda: excellent breakdown of the issue at hand. Solid reasoning all around.
  • 3 3
 @garrisond5: thank you sir
  • 5 4
 @zaalrottunda: Great questions. Thanks for the well reasoned response. I'll try to go through them one by one.

-If you have a company that produces a certain product, and quality of product is paramount, why would you care what ethnicity/gender/creed your work force is?

Technically you don't. But if your work force doesn't reflect the demographics of your qualified applicant pool, you have to ask yourself why that is. It could be a lot things, and it could lead to some very difficult discussions with well meaning people, but you have have them.

Then you check if your qualified applicant pool reflects the available talent pipeline. If it doesn't again, you ask yourself why that is. If the local university is graduating 40%-30%-30% (to keep it simple) of demographics groups A, B, and C, and your applicant pool was 80%-10%-10%. Maybe additional outreach is needed to break through old perceptions. Maybe there's nothing to be done. But I promise you it's worth trying, if only to have a shot at the deep pool of talent.

-Wouldn't it serve everyone (the business, the employees, the consumers) to have the best possible product produced?

Absolutely. No one has disputed that or asked SRAM to sacrifice quality.

-If yes, then that means that the quality of the employee is derived solely on their contribution to the company. Which is typically the case.

Agreed. But there many things that contribute to quality products that get overlooked. One thing I see a lot in my field is that having people from diverse -geographic- backgrounds can be incredibly valuable. People from different (often) poorer parts of the world, grew up dealing with different types of infrastructure and as a matter of course had to come up with very clever solutions to deal it (I work in water resources). Coming out of school and socially, very few of these candidates were in my immediate network (middle class white dudes). It takes a lot of effort to reach out to them and encourage them to apply to jobs. Only a small fraction are qualified. Those that are *and* want the job end up really driving our innovations and bring unique ideas to the table that no one else in the team could have thought. That upfront investment is *well* work it.

-SO, assuming that SRAM's main focus is quality of products, and that there are no barriers to entry for any qualified applicants on the basis of race/gender/creed, WHAT DO YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?

I trust that the CEO knows his business better than I do. So if he says he needs to up the outreach to attract a more diverse candidate pool, I'll believe him.
  • 1 3
 @pmhobson: correct me if I'm wrong but you just essentially agreed with me that applicants/new hires need be judged solely on their qualifications? As much as we want to increase the participation in cycling from other demographics, there is little to no evidence that suggests balancing wages (assuming that they are unbalanced, which they aren't) in the industry would do anything to change the labor pool from which these corporate entities are drawing their labor?
  • 2 4
 @pmhobson: "But if your work force doesn't reflect the demographics of your qualified applicant pool, you have to ask yourself why that is" I totally agree, which is why I stated any company found of DELIBERATELY screening candidates on any basis other than their productive capacity for the company should be made to pay heavy fines or otherwise face punitive damages.

But saying that the lack of diversity is BECAUSE of a limited acceptance of certain races/genders/creeds, is just intellectually dishonest and gets us nowhere.
  • 2 4
 @pmhobson: also again, sorry for the straw man. I hate when ppl do that and I'm ashamed it was me this go round.
  • 1 0
 (grrrr double post)
  • 1 0
 (double post)
  • 1 4
 @pmhobson: ok? So you agree with me?
  • 2 1
 @zaalrottunda: hmm it seems like one of my response got lost last night.

I agree with your first paragraph. Disagree with the second, but maybe I don't understand. What is intellectually dishonest about trying to counteract overt or even subconscious bias?
  • 3 3
 @pmhobson: Subconscious bias is intellectually dishonest. The academic literature has been suffering from a kind of 'reproducibility crisis' in that area of study for years. The seminal work on the topic has been completely discredited.
  • 2 1
 @pmhobson: nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem.html
Just one article (and a good summary of the issue) but google 'Unconscious Bias discredited and there are 00s of creddible results (FT, NYTimes, WSJ, PsychologyToday etc.)
  • 4 0
 @SmashySmashy: I just tried that test the article was about and TBH, I found myself asking so many questions about how to use the single variance of time to respond to pairs of names and words as a basis for extrapolating "bias".

There were so, so many weighted obvious pairs that I found myself predicting what was going on under the test; and if the participant can read what is going on like a book, you have to ask legitimate questions about whether you are getting truly honest results.

However, be careful, subconscious bias has not been discredited, the test has been discredited. The fact that the test may not be a good predictor of subconscious bias does not mean that it does not exist.

Trust me, I am a white guy, living in Japan for a quarter of a century.

I hit it squarely in the face every day.
  • 1 0
 @orientdave: I think they're separate issues. Yes the test has been discredited, but if we don't have an accurate test for it how can you say it exists?

I've been to Japan, and I have friends who live and work there, like you. I think it's a wonderful country, and the people are so welcoming (this coming from an Irishman!), but I've also heard stories about the difficulties my friends have encountered in their lives there (especially after they left Japan and returned home). I'm sure you have plenty of examples of being treated unfairly, just as they did (try being a highly-regarded, female, Caucasian engineering manager and getting passed over for a promotion in favor of your own subordinate).

The example above aside, many of their experiences seem to be due to the different societal norms there and the insular nature of the people, and not the result of any individual prejudice like the IAT is supposed to measure. I don't think it's correct to conflate the two in the way you did.
  • 3 0
 @orientdave: Or to put it another way (and the way I should have explained it) ethnicity, race or gender are not indicators of an individual's merit, worth, skills or their biases.
  • 2 0
 @SmashySmashy:

If we don't have a test for it, how can we say it exists?
God, anyone?

But, being more serious, and keeping it really simple, I give to you two very, very obvious simple examples of subconscious bias...to me it is a no-brainer that there is subconscious (implicit) bias here in Japan; 25 years of daily experience does not need a half-arsed test in Harvard to prove its existence.

In all of the examples. everyone is speaking exclusively in Japanese

Me: (Talking in Japanese in a supermarket to one of the staff in one of the aisles) Excuse me, can you tell me which aisle the flour is in please?
Staff: (In Japanese) Ah, er, sorry, I don't speak English.

Me: (Talking to a group of Japanese middle aged active boomers) So, when I was making my daughter's packed lunch today..
Various members of the group: You what? Didn't your wife do it?

I would be open to hearing anyone's suggestions as to how they could explain daily instances like this to me without requiring the use of bias, conscious or implicit.

Furthermore, the problem with the Harvard tests is that individuals provide differing scores on different days, suggesting the that test has a reciprocity problem, agreed, however there are a million and one other studies that confirm implicit bias in action.
Try this:
fullfact.org/economy/job-applicants-ethnic-minority-sounding-names-are-less-likely-be-called-interview
or this:
www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/24/study-finds-faculty-members-are-more-likely-respond-white-males-others
or this:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483
or this:
psmag.com/economics/black-male-faces-3571
or this:
www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/01/human-brain-is-predisposed-to-negative-stereotypes-new-study-suggests

So, yes, that one work has been discreditied, however the body of evidence still exists. The problem is not that implicit bias doesn't exist, it is that that test is ill conceived.
  • 1 1
 @orientdave: I'll stick to the examples you gave, and the links you provided because if we go down the route of debating existential ideas such as whether God exists we'll be here all year...

I don't think those examples meet the definition of unconscious bias. Unconscious bias is when you prejudice against someone without thinking about it. They do meet the criteria for bias, but we're not talking about overt bias. I think your examples are more better explained by cultural norms in Japan:

1) The girl probably incorrectly assumed you didn't speak Japanese, panicked and didn't hear what you said. I've had this exact same experience in Japan too, and in Spain. I attribute it to people weighing up the likelihood of their various options to help- sometimes just admitting you don't speak the presumed language of the person asking is the best choice. You need to take into account the other person's desire not to be embarrassed too, especially in a country like Japan.
2) Again, it's more likely this was a cultural thing- Japanese culture is still very much based on traditional gender roles. Or maybe they were just making fun of you a little bit.

I don't have time to read all of them just now, but I will say this (and come back to you when I have read them all): The problem with these studies (by and large) is the same as the IAP paper- a clear lack of rigorous scientific method. These papers will all have been through the same faulty peer-review process and opaque research practices. The experiments need to be re-run, using the correct methods before we can begin to conclude anything from them. Earlier papers have been called 'theories in search of evidence' and that's how I view research such as those above- the numbers will often have been massaged and the statements they contain exaggerated in order to increase their impact and potential for publication. They cannot be trusted.
  • 4 1
 @SmashySmashy: Working in corporate America for 20 years I don't need a study to tell me about unconscious bias. I've seen it first hand in literally every place I've ever worked, even "woke" offices. Here's a incomprehensive list of actions that are pervasive:

pushing perfectly compentent women engineers out of technical roles and into design/product management/people management. "you're so good with people, you'd make a good manager" "don't you think you'd like to be involved in the visual design?"

talking over women at meetings

bs excuses about how a qualified female candidate is not the "right fit for a role". Or I don't think she'll fit "our culture".

asking women to take notes in a meeting, while not reciprocating to men

same thing with asking women to order lunch

30+ year old professional women called "girls"

I know of at least one incident of outright sexual harrasment at every place I've worked, and of the course the perpetrator of the most egregious example I know about (which was really, really bad) is now a VP at another company.
  • 2 1
 @dthomp325: I've been working in the corporate world for 15+ years I don't need a study to tell me about the reasonable behaviours of people who know each other and their well meaning interactions. I've seen it first hand in literally every place I've ever worked, even "woke" offices. Here's a comprehendible list of actions that are perfectly normal:

Encouraging perfectly compentent engineers to take promotions from technical roles into design/product management/people management. "You have great knowledge of the product and customers, you'd make a great leader and mentor" "We have a problem in an area you're not very familiar with, but we think you could really deliver"

talking over women at meetings... is done predominantly by other women. While the men watch, aghast.

bs excuses about how a qualified female candidate is not the "right fit for a role". Or I don't think she'll fit "our culture". This is the discussion that has taken place time and time again. An incident I will always remember following an interview de-briefing was when the sole sticking point for an otherwise outstanding male candidate were questions about their fit - due to what was termed a "tendency to dominate". A room full of engineers spent 40 minutes debating this guys assertiveness, and eviserating his character- having observed him for an hour at most. Ultimately it was decided he should be offered the job, (under protest from several HR representatives). I was so glad for they candidate when I heard that he accepted a better offer elsewhere.

asking women to take notes in a meeting, while not reciprocating to men. Because in my experience we're usually asked to arrange the furniture beforehand.

same thing with asking women to order lunch. Managers typically do that, irrespective of their sex.

30+ year old professional women called "girls". And no senior woman has ever referred to a group of men as 'boys'? What kind of a sheltered life do you lead?

All of the above is common human behaviour. Yes, it *can* be done with malice to undermine people, as an insidious form of bully but almost always is just how people interact in friendly, collaborative relationships.

I know of at least one incident of outright sexual harrasment at every place I've worked, and of the course the perpetrator of the most egregious example I know about (which was really, really bad) is now a VP at another company. Sexual haraassment is not caused by bias. It's perpetrated for entirely selfish reasons by terrible people, be they male or female.
  • 1 1
 @dthomp325: The story about the interview was added after all the rest. It wasn't part of my reply until the very end and I didn't change any of my comments after I wrote it
  • 8 4
 Holy crap, if there was an actual gender pay gap (makes me nauseated to type), then companies would only hire women. How is this even a topic for semi educated people?
  • 3 2
 That’s just good business right there hahaha
  • 4 2
 All this is assuming there are 10s of millions of women that want to, are ready to and willing to enter this sport. It's a pretty big gamble, especially if there isn't and in order to force gender equity they decide to marginalize one gender to promote another....this is something that has never been done to women, they just weren't involved because it was a sport mostly dominated by testosterone, let's be clear.....nobody has ever said they could play in the sand box with us, but when you force the kids in the sandbox to play by the same rules as the one on the swings you had better ba careful or the sandbox kids might decide to just dust there knees off, kick down the mountain of road and take our toys and go home or find another sandbox to play in. Just be careful. Don't be blaming men for some perceived disadvantage to women that never existed. Remember it's about equality, the basic rules were in place long ago, don't ask for a softening to allow others to join....it just ruins the quality of the play. Be careful. And if you think I am sexist you know zero about the shit I have witnessed in this industry full of narcissistic psychopaths.
  • 4 1
 I can't wait to show this article to my spouse and watch her spit nails about "entitled feminists and their victim mentalities". Oh this is going to be hilarious! I die laughing every single time!
  • 2 0
 @sarahmoore Thanks for sharing this article and thanks to @SramMedia A huge shout out to all the women leading the way and demonstrating our ability to shred... on the bike, behind the keyboard, with a wrench, and in management. Keep setting the goals high and the jumps higher! Smile
  • 15 14
 I have to throw the biggest BS flag I can find on the whole "there just isn't enough women engineers out there" myth. There certainly is a good amount of women engineers out there. I know because I see and talk to them both at my workplace and at professional societies. I've never seen SRAM or any mtb company at an engineering career fair. How does your salary and benefit package compare to the leading technology and engineering companies out there? What are you basing your assessment on that there aren't enough women engineers out there? I can certainly put you in contact with top rated schools and organizations that will give you a bunch of names and resumes.
  • 5 6
 It is impossible for every company to have a 50% female engineering staff because only (roughly) a third of engineers are women. SRAM is making a deliberate effort and generating a lot of positive discussion regarding women in the bike industry. Please be part of that discussion rather than slinging mud at your allies.
  • 2 0
 @dfiler: Why are countries with the highest % of female STEM graduates the least gender-equal, like UAB or Turkey...then ironically countries with the lowest % of female STEM grads the most gender-equal, like the US or Norway?
  • 1 0
 @SvenNorske: It seems like you're trying to argue but you didn't contradict the point that was made.
  • 8 4
 This is disgusting. Not a single mention of a mans right to have a child.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14
  • 2 1
 Yes, yes. There should definitely be more gender panties in women's mountain biking. Panties worn specifically by me....like a hat. Wait....what.....gender parity???!!! WTF is that? All's fair in love and war, so the saying goes. Ride on, ladiesWink
  • 5 1
 For shits sake people lighten up...treat everyone the way YOU want to be treated in ALL facets of life..simple.
  • 1 1
 In 15 years of my mountain biking experience I run into an African American (aka Black) person handful times. I have done quite few 100 mile races and in all of them roughly 95% of participants were white. Mtb must be an inherently a racist sport. I wonder what is SRAM doing to correct that.
  • 5 1
 Well, that was a steadily evolving trainwreck
  • 4 5
 Oh shit, oh shit oh shit!!! - Not stoping , not stoping!!! Dang it ! Dam dropper won't return either! Still not stoping! Still not stopping! Gears not shifting! Tree ! Tree ! Tree! fuuuvcckkk! this is going to hurt..... .Confound it I say!
  • 4 2
 Why is paternity leave allowance so much lower than maternity leave? Should they not be the same?
  • 5 0
 It's not in Canada. Parents get the choice (after the first 15 weeks) to have either parent take the time off. Leave it up to the parents to do what suits them best.
  • 2 0
 @ldhbaker: I took three months paternity leave.
  • 3 0
 They do need to be the same or else there will always be some motivation to hire the man over the woman who "might need to take maternity leave".
  • 14 15
 The comments on this article are awful and demonstrate that the mountain biking world has a long way to go. All the article is saying, fundamentally, is that there's a need to recognize the disparity in the workplace, and that the company is (it seems like) making an effort to reduce the disparity.

Why is that of such concern to so many people (or rather, the men/boys commenting here)? The only reason to be concerned about it is if you feel threatened. The only reason to feel threatened is because you don't have enough self confidence (or you lack skills/ability). Anyone who's worked in a real life workplace should understand that a) this disparity is often apparent and b) the workplace is better where/when it's lessened.

Get over it, boys, and applaud a company's effort in improving things.
  • 6 1
 The thing is most people assume that this stuff was already happening. Why hasn't SRAM been treating women fairly? Considering it's the law?

So when they start saying they will go over and above the law, which plainly states to treat people fairly and start talking about discriminating against men it sets off alarm bells to people that assume this was a fair environment in the first place that is now seeing a shift from a 50/50 equal opportunity employer to something more discriminatory rather than less.

There's also people that are threatened by women not representing and having the same needs as them. I feel like these folks are pretty easy to spot...

The majority seem concerned with "Reverse discrimination" which seems to be implicated heavily every time these press releases come out.

The only question that needs to be asked to SRAM is : "It's law to treat genders/races equally, why the **** weren't you? and are you planning on reporting yourself to the proper investigative bodies to make sure this is remedied in the future?"
  • 8 3
 @ldhbaker: I'm pretty certain the vast majority here are not threatened by women, and I'd wager no one is. This is about the erosion of fairness and meritocracy. The law states very clearly you cannot discriminate based on gender when hiring or paying employees. Yet progressove companies insist in implementing these kinds of programs to benefit specific groups. Giving special-interest groups greater visibility (either when hiring or when they're employed), lowering qualification standards, setting targets for hiring/ promoting under-represented groups and creating separate hiring piprlines to accomodate them undermine the fairness of a companies hiring practices because these affirmitive action policies also have the effect of disadvantaging individuals that do not belong to the chosen few.
I hope that answers your question.
  • 6 5
 @SmashySmashy: nobody is discriminating though. society will not crumble because a company is investing its own money into outreach programmes. the only reason for thinking that standards will be lowered is because you think women are inferior.
  • 6 3
 @johnnyboy11000: If you advantage one group over others you automatically disadvantage those who don't qualify for the benefits. Tell me, without resorting to explanations of systematic racism and patriarchy, is that fair?
I never said women are inferior, and I never would. But it is basic statistics. If you mandate 50:50 between the sexes, in an industry that is 10:1 male: female (a not unreasonable guess for mtb or STEM fields) then assuming a similar distribution of talent between the 2 groups you *will* have to lower your standards in order to accept the weaker candidates from the smaller pool of suitable female applicants to meet your quota. You are also deliberately filtering out more qualified male candidates in order to achieve your highly dubious egalitarianism. How that is not discriminatory.
  • 2 2
 Is there a disparity? Sram stated they pay based on experience not gender...that based on merit. Anyone who has worked their way up, men or women, would feel financially vulnerable if a company was perceived to desire to raise wages for one group rather than another for any reason other than merit. I want the best people building stuff, I don't care if they are man or woman. They said 40% of their work force is women....10% is not a huge gap to bridge but they will never do it. You want to know why? Maternity leave, and not just that but a lit of women in their 30's decide to have families and leave the workforce, that's not anti female or male domination that's biology and good for them, but it also mean we will never reach parity for long on this gender issue. And the turn over will be greater for women than for men. I think this is just a bunch of virtue signaling to look more socially responsible than the other guys. It's not working....which is why rather than making an announcement once this is on going and it's going to create a division in thinking. If they just did it without rooting their horn nobody would have noticed and once they achieved parity then announced it then perceptions would have been more favorable....but instead they have pissed off a lot of people....maybe even half of them, nice work on parity
  • 6 2
 @SmashySmashy: because that is not what is happening. they aren't meeting quotas and / or overlooking more suitable candidates in order to tick boxes. I'm not saying that that doesn't happen elsewhere, and I agree that it is wrong.

what is happening is a company have realised that there is a potential pool of talent that, for whatever reason, tend to look to different industries for jobs/careers. all they are doing is saying, "hang on, we are a profitable company, why don't we invest some of that profit and see if we can take the lead on this and make this a more attractive place to work for everybody. And if we make a statement of our intentions we'll also benefit from some positive PR"

I think some people get so emotional over something they perceive as unfair without pausing for breath and thinking about what is actually going on.
  • 5 4
 @johnnyboy11000: Also, SRAM is not investing "their own money"; They are re-distributing the money given to them by their predominantly male customers in accordance with the personal politics of their leadership. And I'm absolutely against that. If they feel so passionately about their cause (and it's a good cause) and believe in the merit of their tactics (questionable at best) then let them invest from their personal wealth, and not raid the company kitty.
I'm sure a lot of people here share my hesitation to buy their products now. I was on the verge of purhasing a new Lyrik and set of Code RSCs, but I'll have to re-evaluate those purchases in light of this cluster f*ck.
  • 5 1
 @SmashySmashy: in a similar vein, a company I worked for recently realised that there was a potentially unrecognised talent pool in ex-forces personnel, and invested money in looking at ways to engage with these people and how both sides could benefit from it. not discriminatory or unfair to anybody in the slightest.
  • 3 4
 @johnnyboy11000: But the forces accept both men and women (highly-disciplined and well-trained too I might add) so your company is seeking the traits and skills they bring to the table, not innate characteristics.
  • 6 2
 @SmashySmashy: i didn't mean they were personally paying out of their own pocket. I thought it was obvious to everyone that directors of a company are in control of the companies funds. The only other people who have a right to have a say in what a company does with its profits are the shareholders.

I don't understand what the complaint is about "redistributing money given to them" isn't that literally how money works?

that last statement is pretty pathetic btw. can you honestly imagine explaining that to someone in real life "why did you get fox?" "i wanted SRAM but they work with women"
  • 3 4
 @johnnyboy11000: I think we got our lines crossed.
I'm saying that if these leader believe so much in what they're doing then why aren't they investing out of their own pocket, instead of re-distributing the money given to them by their customers for better products to satisfy personal/ political preferences?

A corporately responsible company would ensure their existing customers are satisfied sufficiently to remain customers of the brand, while growing their customer base. The approach here seems to be to burn a large swathe of their existing customers in the hopes of appealing to new ones.

Well fortunately I don't have to explain it that way. That's not my gripe, nor is it the the reasonable objections of the majority here who oppose these announcements. You really have to stop framing it as being a problem with women- you risk looking like an idiot, incapable of listening and considering what you're being told and if you continue to do so you'll never understand the double standard at play here, and the injustice of what SRAM are implementing. I'm not against SRAM for supporting women, and I would actively go out of my way to purchase from a brand that supports women in a meaningful way. But I will not purchase from a company that exploits their so-called virtue in this way and aligns itself with an ignorant, superficial and highly divisive ideology.
  • 4 1
 @SmashySmashy: well directors personal finances usually are tied to the performance of their company through stock/shares etc and as they are ultimately responsible for the direction the company takes then they do have a lot at stake.

maybe they were naive and thought that trying to appeal to more women wouldn't piss off so many men. although I'm willing to bet that a few outspoken people on a forum do not constitute 'large swathes' of their existing market.

I'm obviously not getting through to you that there is no injustice here - and your repeated assertions that there is is what leads me to make my own assumptions as to the real reason why people like you are so worked up over this.
  • 3 4
 @johnnyboy11000: Well, if they'd gone about appealing to women correctly they wouldn't have pissed anyone off. And that seems to be the part that you're missing in all this. It's not that they want to increase female participation, it's how they're going about it.
The real reason is the reason I already stated- there's a double standard at play here that's prejudicial, discriminatory and unjust. Just because you agree with the stated end goal does not automatically mean you should agree with how it is achieved. There are manifest, destructive consequences to the tactics SRAM and others before them have utilised to address a very undefined and poorly understood problem that are being ignored. And people like you enable them by shouting down anyone who tries to raise reasonable objections on highlight those consequences as sexist women-haters and what-have-you. They're depending on the ignorance of sheep-le to push through their agenda; It's their motives you should be concerned about. I hope in time you understand that and realise what a fool you're being taken for.
  • 5 1
 @SmashySmashy: ok mate. once you used the word 'sheeple' the conversation is over for me. cheers
  • 2 4
 @johnnyboy11000: Sheep-le is a very mild term, and there was more than enough content before I said it for you to respond to.
We all know what you're doing. It's just the false indignancy of someone who knows their arguments don't hold up under scrutiny in an honest discussion.
  • 2 2
 @johnnyboy11000: Find me a kid that wants to become an engineer in an industry they have 0 interest in. That's SRAM's and the industries issue more than anything else. They don't invest enough in getting women into cycling before they are choosing a career path.

Bitching and chewing that there isn't enough female workforce to employ, or customers to sell product to, when you've done exactly 0 to appeal to that demographic in 40 years is nonsense. Is Barbie bitching not enough boys are playing with Barbies? It's ridiculous, a product marketed and designed for one sex disproportionately will see that represented in it's clientele. That's an outrageously easy fix in cycling, easier than Barbies, it should have happened 10 years ago and they would be reaping the rewards today. It's mainly marketing and community outreach, it's stuff they are already doing but they choose to focus on men. That's a SRAM/Industry problem.

Hiring quotas based on gender and race are illegal. They are basically admitting to having done that in the past, and want to try and fix it by doing it again but the other direction to make it even-Steven. This is not a solution, and it's absolutely guaranteed to create resentment between the sexes in the workplace.

This virtue signalling stuff should not be applauded, for instance if they were really into this whole "progressive awesome company" schtick they are trying to sell with a press release they would have taken the Maternity leave policy deemed best and implemented it company wide, instead they do slightly better than the bare minimum with absolutely no examples as to how.
  • 2 4
 @johnnyboy11000: Novel thought: We could all win if we presented our ideas, listened to and considered any reasonable criticism of them and then agreed the best way forward for everyone together.
But this shitshow right here? No one wins this way. Giving up as you did just leads to inertia and nothing gets aired out or resolved.
This may be a bad question to ask, but where is your courage? You say you're for a better world but you won't do anything for it personally. Is it any wonder people like me think people like you are just in it for the feels and dopamine hit that comes from being validated by a bunch of f*cking likes.
  • 5 0
 @johnnyboy11000: I applaud your efforts - it’s a fruitless exercise arguing in this forum... Pinkbike commenters are overwhelmingly male and focussed on (unfortunately) a male dominated sport. Seems like they’re not always advocates for equality.
  • 2 2
 @ldhbaker: It's not a male thing, it's a fairness thing. We can't have a minority of people dictating how the majority should live, work and find enjoyable in life. And worse, creating a world in which the majority lose out to benefit cherry-picked minorities.
  • 2 1
 @SmashySmashy: Tell that to everyone except white males and they'll whole-heartedly agree with you. Think about how that's basically how the rest of the demographic groups have felt for a long time, and likely still feel.
  • 1 1
 @ldhbaker: I won't be drawn into a discussion about the relative morailty of what is past, or their perception of the present. I'm trying to say that we should be looking for ways to improve things for everybody, or at least the vast majority of people. Selecting under-represented groups, exaggerating their grievances and directing their anger at other groups to fulfil personal ambitions is simply not the way to bring about a better world.
  • 2 0
 @SmashySmashy: That's fine. Ignoring how things have gone (and currently are going) for the vast majority of the population is part of the conversation though. One can't simply wipe the slate clean and say "treat everyone equally and things will be fine" - it's just too over-simplistic. I don't think SRAM (or anyone else really for that matter) are suggesting that men should be restricted in any way - simply that it's healthy for the workplace and society as a whole to provide women with as much opportunity as possible.
  • 1 2
 @ldhbaker: Well, why wouldn't it be ok to simply wipe the slate clean and say "treat everyone equally and things will be fine" ? What exactly is wrong is that approach? You say it's over-simplistic, but simple is often very effective.
Secondly, "it's healthy for the workplace and society as a whole to provide women with as much opportunity as possible." Have you ever heard the saying "Too much of a good thing is bad for you"? That applies in spades here. How much opportunity is too much opportunity? As in, how many resources and how much time should we as a society put into giving women as much opportunity as possible? Especially as they don't seem to be making making much of the opportunities they've been given to date. Could it simply be that women aren't men, and have their own ideals and interests? Are there not other problems that would benefit immensely from that same time and those same resources that affect everyone, and not just a select few?
  • 2 2
 @ldhbaker: Clarification: Women don't seem to be making making much of the opportunities they've been given to date... in the preferred direction of progressives. That is to say women are more free (as we all are) to choose how to live, but they are not choosing to follow the progressive line that they must emulate men to be successful.
  • 3 0
 @SmashySmashy: Sram and many other companies think they can find better candidates and achieve better business outcomes by attracting and hiring more female applicants. They don't "implement these kinds of programs to benefit specific groups", they implement the programs to benefit the company by getting access to a larger un-tapped talent pool. It's about bringing more people into the process, not unfairly excluding men. They are still hiring who they think will most benefit their company, which is the very definition of "meritocracy". A business is at a competitive disadvantage if it is unable to attract and retain quality female talent.
  • 2 2
 @dthomp325: "A business is at a competitive disadvantage if it is unable to attract and retain quality female talent." Why specifically female?
As Ken himself points out, the pool of qualified female engineers is small compared with males. (So much for your theory of identifying un-tapped talent. Besides, in the current political climate female engineers are being snapped up and are out-earning their male counterparts by 20-25% at every level). Which means you quickly run out of quality female engineers relative to male ones, and then you're into just average or below before you've even got below above average with the male engineers. Mandating a 50:50 split means that those below average female engineers would then have to be taken on to off-set the better male ones, or neither get hired. I've actually been in post-interview meetings where this very discussion took place (though thankfully wasn't implemented).
  • 2 0
 @SmashySmashy: No one is talking about mandating a 50:50 split or gender quotas. Sram obviously thinks they can more effectively hire the candidates with the merits their company is looking for by increasing their ability to attract female candidates, otherwise they wouldn't be investing in it. It's a profit driven company like any other, they aren't going to spend money on it just for shits and giggles.
  • 1 1
 @dthomp325: SRAM is pursuing gender parity in the sport of cycling: m.pinkbike.com/news/sram-commits-to-greater-gender-parity-and-more-women-to-the-start-line.html
This was the press release that preceded the interview above: It's all there in the first paragraph.
And they're not looking solely to attract female candidates. They're mandating that females are given opportunities that are not afforded to men. From the above: "We’ve made good changes, like requiring all interview candidate pools to have at least one woman in them." I'd wager they're fine with candidate pools with no men though. So much for gender parity. You might argue that they get overwhelmingly male applicants, so I'm not making much sense, but my stance on this is that there is 1 rule for women and a different rule for men. They're being treat differently based only on their sex; Which, any way you cut it is the definition of discrimination. A better rule would be that all candidate pools are required to be represented by both genders. You may think I'm splitting hairs, but this stuff matters. Laws and rules which only benefit individuals that belong to favored groups are by and large not good for society. Or perhaps a better way of saying it is that rules such as these should seek to benefit all society, and not just a select few groups- The example being child protection laws. We were all children once, and they are arguably our most vulnerable citizens, so it makes sense to afford them more protection under the law, and to punish those who commit crimes against them more severely than they would be for committing those same crimes against adults.
With that said, how can you not at least consider the possibility that this method SRAM are implementing is offensive to women and creates a double standard, where adults from a favored group are seen as requiring special effort in order to earn what another group has *based solely on an immutable characteristic? How condescending is that?
  • 3 1
 @SmashySmashy: it'll be OK. You will survive even if Sram interviews and hires more women. hugs.
  • 5 2
 I want more women in sewage cleaning.
  • 1 2
 If there was a true push from any organisation it wouldn´t take a paid for advertisement to get it noticed.

But then this company has basically marketed itself to its position of dominance and why change a winning formula.

There was a time when MTB was default "anti-establishment" - look at how far and fast that worm has turned...
  • 2 1
 Q: "How much have you practiced deflecting questions with overly generic responses?"

A: "We think the SRAM brand is great and want to make it better."
  • 2 1
 "Its because women are half the population". f*ck me, can she be on my team?!!
  • 2 1
 The bike industry, as a whole, cannot manufacture more interest for women to be involved.
  • 1 3
 I think I liked better when we didn’t worry so much and gender equality, in the fifty plus years I’ve been watching this stuff evolve, I’m not that convinced that anything has changed for the better .... maybe gotten crazier and weirder.

and to think I studied fem theory thirty years ago and this is what we got, and now Trump is president, gawd we are so f*cked.
  • 11 9
 Sigh..
  • 3 2
 such a headache to be a boss these days
  • 1 0
 Poll answer: SRAM
  • 2 1
 PCBS
  • 2 2
 They should just focus on their engineering, not this crap. Shimano wins
  • 2 3
 got 99 problems but 28.99 ain't one.
  • 1 2
 Can Pinkbike produce stats on the gender split of its user group?
  • 1 3
 Hmmmmm....
That 'female' in the second photo has bigger biceps than 90% of the male population
  • 4 3
 @YoKev: 90% of woke-bros anyway Wink
  • 5 8
 They could send Vice President of HR, Eileen Mulry on an engineering course for starters and give her job to a dude.
  • 9 12
 The comment section is full of more grumpy old men than I realized...
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.044064
Mobile Version of Website