ChatterBank3 mins ago
Positive discrimination???
WTF is going on? Is it the job of the Government to tell employers who to employ? Surely with the state of Brown's government they have more important things to worry about! Is positve discrimination necessary? Surely the best person for the job will get it regardless of race/colour/sex.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Do you have a link?
Is there a particular news item you are referring to, or is this just an unspecific, general point you are making.
But, in answer to your question, evidence proves that the 'best' person does not always get the job. Discrimination happens in the work place, employers like to employ similar people, mostly the people in positions of authority and power have been white males.
Is there a particular news item you are referring to, or is this just an unspecific, general point you are making.
But, in answer to your question, evidence proves that the 'best' person does not always get the job. Discrimination happens in the work place, employers like to employ similar people, mostly the people in positions of authority and power have been white males.
NO!
The Government is to ALLOW companies to choose on the basis of race or handicap to increase it's diversity if there are EQUALLY QUALIFIED candidates
Stop listening to weasel journalists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801 .stm
Note "If they want to"
Sorry to spoil a good Loony Left "cornflake spitter"
The Government is to ALLOW companies to choose on the basis of race or handicap to increase it's diversity if there are EQUALLY QUALIFIED candidates
Stop listening to weasel journalists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801 .stm
Note "If they want to"
Sorry to spoil a good Loony Left "cornflake spitter"
-- answer removed --
so why is that necessary at all Jake? There's no such thing as "equal" candidates. Where I work, and I do do recruitment interviews, the best person get's the job, I don't care what colour/race/sex they are. Even when 2 people are equally qualified one will be better for the job than the other, so the situation does not arise, so just what will this new legislation bring to the process?
One of the more stupid aspects of the reporting of this yesterday related to age discrimination with Travel Insurance. Apparently older people can't get travel insurance. Shock, horror. Don't these prats realise that insurance is the risk-based product and the premium depends on an assessment of the risk. Age equates to greater propensity to be ill (unfortunately) that equates to probability of a claim. QED. All that will happen if companies are forced to provide cover is that travel insurance WILL be offered, but at a high price that reflects the risk to the insurer involved.
jake-the-peg thanks for the link - it makes it perfectly clear now.
R1Geezer. Oh I am very happy that when I am offering someone a job, all applicants being equally well qualified, I can then choose who might fit in with the team and/ or offer something to the customers on the grounds of race or gender.
It is to do with the Government that recruitment of staff comply with the law. It is to do with the Government that we have up to date legislation that reflects the diversity of the workforce.
R1Geezer. Oh I am very happy that when I am offering someone a job, all applicants being equally well qualified, I can then choose who might fit in with the team and/ or offer something to the customers on the grounds of race or gender.
It is to do with the Government that recruitment of staff comply with the law. It is to do with the Government that we have up to date legislation that reflects the diversity of the workforce.
If there wasn't positive discrimination, women would not get a lot of jobs.
If you have two identical candidates, why would you employ one who may elect to have a child forcing you to get someone else in for maybe 6 months, maybe 12 months or maybe permanently.
Not to mention that one may have mood swings once a month
If you have two identical candidates, why would you employ one who may elect to have a child forcing you to get someone else in for maybe 6 months, maybe 12 months or maybe permanently.
Not to mention that one may have mood swings once a month
What they're doing with this "anti"-discrimination bill is to make it legal and acceptable to discriminate.
That is, as long as it's discriminating against those that they deem it acceptable to discriminate against, i.e. white males.
I despise descrimination of any kind, by any creed, for any reason.
Great minds of our times indeed.
That is, as long as it's discriminating against those that they deem it acceptable to discriminate against, i.e. white males.
I despise descrimination of any kind, by any creed, for any reason.
Great minds of our times indeed.
I am not trying to say that, but look at this question to illustrate my point: http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question586 659.html
This is, as usual, a mixture of smoke, mirrors, half truths and deceit.
As I understand it, an employer will be allowed to take advantage of this legislation in the event that he has a number of equally qualified candidates. He may then select (say) a black female over a white male. He can, of course, do this now. (Harriet Harman cited the all too frequently occurring example of a Board wishing to appoint more women to its �Top Team� but being prevented from doing so under the current rules).
The difference this law will make is that at present he cannot say he has made his choice on (say) the basis of skin colour. If this law is passed he will be able to do so. However, no employer will be forced into anything (so Harriet Harman�s story goes).
Many public bodies (most notably the police and fire services) have been practising so-called �positive discrimination� for many years. This, of course, is illegal but it has gone on unchecked. It is done, they say, to ensure that the service is �representative of the community it serves�. Whilst I can just about see the merit of this for the police service, I cannot see its relevance in the fire service. After all, who cares what colour the firefighter is who comes round to put out your blazing house.
[cont�d]
As I understand it, an employer will be allowed to take advantage of this legislation in the event that he has a number of equally qualified candidates. He may then select (say) a black female over a white male. He can, of course, do this now. (Harriet Harman cited the all too frequently occurring example of a Board wishing to appoint more women to its �Top Team� but being prevented from doing so under the current rules).
The difference this law will make is that at present he cannot say he has made his choice on (say) the basis of skin colour. If this law is passed he will be able to do so. However, no employer will be forced into anything (so Harriet Harman�s story goes).
Many public bodies (most notably the police and fire services) have been practising so-called �positive discrimination� for many years. This, of course, is illegal but it has gone on unchecked. It is done, they say, to ensure that the service is �representative of the community it serves�. Whilst I can just about see the merit of this for the police service, I cannot see its relevance in the fire service. After all, who cares what colour the firefighter is who comes round to put out your blazing house.
[cont�d]
[Part 2]
Now imagine this. The same employer has two equally suitable candidates, one black, one white. At the moment he can choose the white candidate and will simply be open to an accusation of racial discrimination by the black candidate. The onus will be upon him (the candidate) to prove that discrimination took place and under current legislation this is quite difficult.
Under the new legislation (according to Harriet Harman on R4 today) eventually employers will be forced (as are public bodies now) to publish their �diversity� figures. This will mean that employers whose workforce is under represented by (say) black people will come under pressure to discriminate in favour of blacks and will almost certainly be open to accusations not simply of discrimination (as they are now) but of failing to �positively discriminate� to reach their diversity quota. This will be much easier to prove.
I look forward to this. It means that waiters and kitchen staff in my local Indian and Chinese restaurants will be predominantly white as the white population in my area is about 85%. I also look forward to England winning the World Cup in 2010, and to Andy Murray winning Wimbledon this year and every year for the next decade.
Now imagine this. The same employer has two equally suitable candidates, one black, one white. At the moment he can choose the white candidate and will simply be open to an accusation of racial discrimination by the black candidate. The onus will be upon him (the candidate) to prove that discrimination took place and under current legislation this is quite difficult.
Under the new legislation (according to Harriet Harman on R4 today) eventually employers will be forced (as are public bodies now) to publish their �diversity� figures. This will mean that employers whose workforce is under represented by (say) black people will come under pressure to discriminate in favour of blacks and will almost certainly be open to accusations not simply of discrimination (as they are now) but of failing to �positively discriminate� to reach their diversity quota. This will be much easier to prove.
I look forward to this. It means that waiters and kitchen staff in my local Indian and Chinese restaurants will be predominantly white as the white population in my area is about 85%. I also look forward to England winning the World Cup in 2010, and to Andy Murray winning Wimbledon this year and every year for the next decade.
