I think productivity monitoring is bullshit. I'll agree it's nice in theory, but it's usually impossible to pull off in a fair or mostly fair way.

I'm a software developer, and I can spend a day going off in a direction that ends up being useless. Some jobs look easy but end up being very difficult and vice versa.

A friend does something to do with approving loans. Some clients are simply more difficult and complicated than others, in ways that can't be predicted by performance measuring software.

To be honest, I think the only jobs where it can work are those that have someone doing something identical in a repetitive manner, though robots have replaced most of those, or jobs that are small enough that you can mostly fit the time required to a simple equation, such as those that pack groceries for delivery.

Bots also have a different meaning to just those that are fake accounts. On Reddit, it would also be the auto bot accounts that reply to people (like the auto mod stuff).

But by bot traffic, they'll also be including any server to server communication. This will be Google's Web crawling/caching bot. Or when a website asks another website (web service) for some information. It probably also includes when automatic backups are uploading data to Google drive or OneDrive.

It might be due to my misunderstanding of quotas, as they have not been common in anywhere I've worked. My understanding is mostly from reading online about US universities where they want X% of black students, X% of asian, etc. Therefore, when a student A applies with the exact same GPA (and extracurricular activities or whatever else they use to determine who gets into university) as student B, but student A is white and B is black, B will get in while A won't.

I'm assuming it works somewhat similar with hiring quotas, where they want roughly 50% female staff, so if there currently 40% male staff, then either they can't hire females, or they are strongly encouraged to hire more males (or vice versa if there are more male staff).

My solution wasn't to have quotas in the hiring staff at all, it was to have no quoatas anywhere. It also wasn't a solution, it was an ideal. My core argument is that if the hiring team is representative, then they will hire in such a way that you'll end up with representative workforce. That's because the bias' should cancel each other out. If men are biased to hire men, and women are biased to hire women, having 50% men and 50% women on a hiring team should result in 50% men and 50% women being hired.

I'm fully for the government fully representing our diversity, I just want a better way for it to happen than forcing it. If males are in charge of the hiring process, then quotas are the lesser of two evils (forced representation is better than no representation at least).

However, in that case the "best" choice would be to ensure that there are more women in the hiring position, so managerial positions are more representative. If the hiring people are representative of the whole population, theoretically the hires would also be representative and be diverse without requiring quotas.

I don't think cabinets should have quotas either, it should be made up with meritocracy, not skin-colour-ocracy. Hopefully by having a fair representation in parliament, you also get appointed jobs having fair representation too without attempting to enforce it.

While Anti-Asian sentiment would suck, letting china walk all over NZ would suck even more. It's not like I have any answers though.

My grandparents were Dutch, but my dad joined the navy so no citizenship by descent for me. I'll take a work visa too.