Do you agree with the new Coalition equality drive?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/5tsa8hv

/// Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone says all public sector organisations should consider sending ‘diversity monitoring forms’ to staff to prove they are treating all sections of society fairly.///

In my opinion, it's more likely that they want to be see treating 'SOME' sections of society more fairly than others.

[jake-the-peg]

I take it that you'd just abolish any sort of rules regarding equality and just let people descriminate against minorities in any way they felt fit?

[Davethedog]

This just smacks of more bureaucracy = less done.

This would take public spending, which they are saying they will cut.

I also thought this government was going to revue the human rights act to stop crap like this not expand it.

[anotheoldgit]

redhelen

/// Yes I agree with the Lib Dem and no I do not agree with you.///

Fair enough I would have been surprised if you thought otherwise, but that was not my question being "Do you agree with the new Coalition equality drive"?

Please also note that I was careful to add "in my opinion" to my statement, so can I take it that your answer is only your opinion also?

/// I work for the civil service and I am appalled at how some people talk about ethnic minorities it is disgusting and they should be treated the same ///

To which I add, I am a member of AnswerBank and the way some people make remarks against me is disgusting and we should all be treated the same.

[jackthehat]

Dave - If all departments made it their business to treat *everyone* equally, there would be no room for the seemingly endless 'discrimination' cases and all the attendant costs they generate which come out of the 'public coffers'.

[sp1814]

Totally agree with any drive to greater equality. It may actually benefit companies as they would then have stats to establish whether there were strange patterns which need addressing (eg. are redundancies/appointments skewed in favour of men, women, gays or ethnic minorities).

I cant see how these proposals could be viewed as a way to treat some sections of society more fairly than others - it's a record keeping protocol more than anything else. It could also be used as proof that a company IS treating it's workforce fairly if they were ever accused of future discrimination (and could be used to refute any allegation of institutionalised racism/sexism/ageism etc).

[kinell]

i would prefer to have the best candidate for the job irrespective of points gained on a pc manufactured scale

[andy-hughes]

It seems like a 'horse and stable door' interface to me.

If you have (and let's give PS organisations the benefit here) employed an individual on the basis of their experience,qualifications and overall suitability for a job, and they are in post, what exactly is to be gained by moving them out of that post in order to replace them with someone of an alternate ethnic origin or sexual orienatation, in order to be perceived as 'fair'?

It simply appears to treat some workers unfairly in order to be seen to be 'fair' to others, based on arbitrary targets for minorities of various kinds.

Dangerously near tyo wasting public money on another trendy quango, and more importantly, singularly failing to reach its stated objectives.

I agree with your opinion on this issue AOG (heck!)

[Davethedog]

Jack I am totally 100% against discrimination. I agree with you, however at some point common sense must kick in and it be handled in house with discipline rather than money.

[sandyRoe]

It may be more to do with recruitment rather than moving people so that their place can be taken by someone from an underrepresented minority.
If you don't know you have a problem how can you begin to deal with it?

[sp1814]

"i would prefer to have the best candidate for the job irrespective of points gained on a pc manufactured scale"

In a perfect world, that's how it would work....but companies are made up of individuals, some of whom have irrational prejudices. The proposals don't aim to eradicate them, but to give companies the toolset to monitor staff demographics.

[birdie1971]

Sp1814 - “The proposals... give companies the tool set to monitor staff demographics”

Or to put it another way, the proposals are an attempt to legitimise the practice of employers poking their noses in to their employee's private lives whether they like it or not. Why should an employee have to disclose their sexuality or their religious beliefs? What if that employee does not want to disclose these facts? I think it's disgraceful that anyone should have to tell their employer what their sexual orientation is or what they chose to believe in.

[birdie1971]

sandyRoe - “It may be more to do with recruitment rather than moving people so that their place can be taken by someone from an under-represented minority”.

Which is another way of legitimising the practice of 'positive discrimination' which is an oxymoron. Discrimination is discrimination. If you find yourself discriminated against because of the colour of your skin, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, disability status or religious beliefs then I think it's fair to say that you'd be pretty disgruntled to say the least. And no amount of consoling yourself with the notion that since it's 'positive discrimination' that makes it somehow okay and acceptable will detract from the fact that you have been discriminated against for having the audacity to be you.

[sandyRoe]

Birdie1971, what's wrong with 'positive discrimination'? If a workforce doesn't represent the population because of past discrimination how would you change it?

[youngmafbog]

Lets not forget that discrimination works both ways in the workplace. For instance I did know a Muslim manager that clearly favoured anyone with Mohammad in his name. Granted perhaps rare, but it happens.

Unfortunatley it is an education thing, plus a cultural shift. You will find that as the population ages things will change. I am old enough to remember for sale signs with 'no blacks' tagged to them. This nowadays is unimaginable and clearly totally wrong but time and education has bred acceptance and tollerance.

So this is what must happen with all forms of intollerance. It will not happen overnight though.

[mike11111]

I remember those signs outside boarding houses:
No dogs
No blacks
No Irish
(in that order).

[birdie1971]

SandyRoe - “what's wrong with 'positive discrimination'?”

Are you being serious? If you are, then I can only assume that you believe that discriminating against someone because of their skin colour, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, disability status or religious beliefs, is absolutely fine by you.

I used the word 'oxymoron' to describe the phrase 'positive discrimination'. I trust that you are aware of the meaning of this word. That being so, I am astonished by your question.

What is wrong with 'positive discrimination' is that it arbitrarily discriminates. Would you ask, 'What's wrong with positive sexism?' or 'What's wrong with positive anti-semitism?'. Hopefully not.

The phrase 'positive discrimination' is one of the most obnoxious phases in existence today. Its current usage most often advocates discrimination based primarily on ethnicity.

[birdie1971]

Continued...

You further state, “If a workforce doesn't represent the population because of past discrimination how would you change it?”

I wouldn't change it unless it needed changing because it was ineffective. Why should a workforce be representative of a population? Does making a workforce representative of a population demographic make a business more profitable or a more pleasant place to work? No, because your gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. is an irrelevance. What's important is the ability to carry out your duties effectively.

What you're suggesting is this: A particular Indian restaurant employs 25 Indian staff. According to recent figures, Indians in the UK represent about 2% of the population. Therefore, if we're living in positive discrimination land, then in order to accurately represent the racial demographic, the restaurant would have to replace 24 of its staff with 'non-Indians'.

Fair? I think not.