Jump to content

Government to discriminate in favour of women and ethnic minorities...


Therapist

Recommended Posts

Harman is an absolute shocker.

She has made her career by being female, and failing when given decent jobs.

Dreadful nonsense this, so it might be brought in! :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of the article was that it wasn't saying you HAVE to pick the minority if all candidates are equal, just that if all candidateas are equal you can then select by age, race, gender etc to balance your workforce.

 

Storm ina tea cup I think but I agree with the OP that it is quite probably a waste of parliamentary time and that an employer should pick the person that they think best for the job. Common sense i should think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been 'positive discrimination' for years. My dad worked for a trade union, he didn't get a job, even though he was the best man for it because they wanted a woman in the position. Also as a trade union they often employ people with disabilities just to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti -discrimminatory measures from a cabinet member who sent her children to the posh grammar on the other side of town, when her Government were endorsing the benefit of state education. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambopompey

im wondering when being a white male will be seen as a minority so we can get a fair deal.

if an employer is looking for someone, they should have the choice to pick who they feel will suit them best, not some silly law/rule just to make quotas look good, if your good enough you get the job, rather than getting a job due to your skin colour/sex/disabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a woman I do agree that the best person for the job should get it regardless of gender, race etc.

 

However, when I studied law we had to discussaffirmative action in one of our seminars with the situation where both candidates are equally qualified and able and I think that is where the problem lies.

Although in my opinion the decision should be arbitrarily made by the employer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart Lyon

It should be on ability. How on earth in an interview do you think that candidates are equally qualified? No matter how hard you may try there will always be something in the interviewers mind that puts one candidate ahead of another. If it is a situation where candidates have equal qualifications it will be a rare situation when they have identical experience.

 

I foresee lots of industrial tribunals coming out of this legislation so more money for the lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chester copperpot

I have hired hundreds of staff in my time in the bank, and have to say, women are better candidates and prove to be better workers than men.

 

I agree though, picking someone for anything other than their suitability for the job is just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterpart

 

In other news, apples no longer taste like pears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay

If we are all equal as in women are equal with men then why are laws needed to prove it?

 

 

 

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree though, picking someone for anything other than their suitability for the job is just wrong.

 

You're quite right Chester, however the legislation isn't saying that someone should get a job if they are not qualified or suitable for that positon,

 

I'm not having a dig at you, just that your comment seems to encapsulate what a lot of people are saying on this thread which is actually not the point raised by the legislation in the first place. (As I interpret it anyway!):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Freewheelin' Jambo
I have hired hundreds of staff in my time in the bank, and have to say, women are better candidates and prove to be better workers than men.

I agree though, picking someone for anything other than their suitability for the job is just wrong.

 

Agreed.

 

Just don't feck it up by making one of them the boss though!!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boaby Ewing

My current boss (Malaysian, certified gayer) told me he gave me the job as there were too many wimmin, woofters, and furners on the team, and they needed a white, hetrosexual, British male to even things out.

 

That's the kind of positive discrimination I'm all for ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chester copperpot
You're quite right Chester, however the legislation isn't saying that someone should get a job if they are not qualified or suitable for that positon,

 

I'm not having a dig at you, just that your comment seems to encapsulate what a lot of people are saying on this thread which is actually not the point raised by the legislation in the first place. (As I interpret it anyway!):)

 

 

 

I know mate, just like to throw my oar in whenever I see something that might need my opinion. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current boss (Malaysian, certified gayer) told me he gave me the job as there were too many wimmin, woofters, and furners on the team, and they needed a white, hetrosexual, British male to even things out.

 

That's the kind of positive discrimination I'm all for ;-)

 

So he likes a challenge then?

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At my work, all interviewers must first complete "equality training" where one is presented with various scenarios involving gaylords, wimmin, Johnny Foreigners, lezzas, disabled people, coffin dodgers, muslims, etc and asked which of the possible outcomes shown are "acceptable". :sad:

 

I have to say I was often minded to chuck in the odd "wrong" answer just for a laugh. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...