Blacklists a good thing for the economy?

1echidna

I refer to union outrage that employerers using blacklists to vet potential employees. I see it as in the public interest that militants are kept out of employment in the public interest unless we want a return to the mad days last century. After all people with medical conditions are often denied employment for much less valid reasons.

olly300

So you think it's ok that someone can keep a private list and sell it to companies with reasons why you shouldn't be employed which may not be the truth?

Black lists are actually legal what was not legal in this case was the fact that the data was hidden from those on the list and they couldn't question it's validity.

Also it's illegal to discriminate against someone because they are or are not in a union.

The majority of union reps are not the militant RMT types their purpose is to stop employers normally large employers taking the p*** out of normal employees.

blakester

1echidna wrote: »

I refer to union outrage that employerers using blacklists to vet potential employees. I see it as in the public interest that militants are kept out of employment in the public interest unless we want a return to the mad days last century. After all people with medical conditions are often denied employment for much less valid reasons.

The thing is, could you be sure it would stop there with the information that a potential employee was an active unionist for example. It was private/secret information that was made available. Some information might be very personal to an employee and it would/may be unethical for a potential employer to have that information. I can't think of an example right now, just really putting a different perspective on it from a potential employees view.

olly300

blakester wrote: »

The thing is, could you be sure it would stop there with the information that a potential employee was an active unionist for example. It was private/secret information that was made available. Some information might be very personal to an employee and it would/may be unethical for a potential employer to have that information. I can't think of an example right now, just really putting a different perspective on it from a potential employees view.

I can give you an example from what I heard was on the list.

It stated that one guy on the list was Irish.

Now what has that got to do with his ability to do or not do a job? It's blatant race discrimination under the law.

Also the time that union reps would be militant would be when a large employer is not following health and safety guidelines to save money. Do you think it's OK that someone gets killed or maimed because an employer wants to save a few pounds?

1echidna

Unfortunately militants taking the p*** out of all of us is still a major problem in some industries. I am thinking here of refinery workers at Grangemouth being able to extract a large (I think 7%) payrise not long ago on top of already large wages. The system of writing references is just as unseen by the person whom the reference is about and just as subject to not being the truth. Having said that, it needs regularising to be in line with the data protection regulations.

olly300

1echidna wrote: »

The system of writing references is just as unseen by the person whom the reference is about and just as subject to not being the truth. Having said that, it needs regularising to be in line with the data protection regulations.

There is nothing stopping a company getting a verbal reference. The trick here is for both sides to write a notes/report of the conversation that doesn't include illegal or discriminatory data.

Unfortunately some people are simply too stupid to do this or think the law of the land doesn't apply to them.

1echidna

olly300 wrote: »

I can give you an example from what I heard was on the list.

It stated that one guy on the list was Irish.

Now what has that got to do with his ability to do or not do a job? It's blatant race discrimination under the law.

Also the time that union reps would be militant would be when a large employer is not following health and safety guidelines to save money. Do you think it's OK that someone gets killed or maimed because an employer wants to save a few pounds?

I am afraid that the misuse of safety concerns by unions as a subterfuge to preserve jobs seems to me to far outway their ability to be objective in many cases. Where they use their offices to go to the proper channels on these matters the Health and Safety Executive then fine.

blakester

olly300 wrote: »

I can give you an example from what I heard was on the list.

It stated that one guy on the list was Irish.

Now what has that got to do with his ability to do or not do a job? It's blatant race discrimination under the law.

Also the time that union reps would be militant would be when a large employer is not following health and safety guidelines to save money. Do you think it's OK that someone gets killed or maimed because an employer wants to save a few pounds?

I agree with you Olly, I might'nt have expressed that clearly in my post. I don't think it is ethical to operate these kind of blacklists. Of course a persons ethnicity or country of origin has got nothing to do with ones ability to do a job, thats what qualifications and work experience are for. Apologies if my post came across otherwise

piggeh

I think if companies are not going to employ someone because they see the fact that they're Irish as being a problem, then they're beetter off not working for those kind of idiots. However most of this stuff happens already, it's just unwritten. If you go into an interview and say you raised a grievance against your last manager they wont employ you, yet this has nothing to do with your ability to do a job. The job market is real cloak & dagger stuff these days, don't tell anyone the genuine reasons for leaving or why you did x in year y as for 90% of genuine reasons they'll probably cross you straight off the list even if you're the best candidate. Nice to live in a world with so many prejudices isn't it.

StevieJ

1echidna wrote: »

I refer to union outrage that employerers using blacklists to vet potential employees. I see it as in the public interest that militants are kept out of employment in the public interest unless we want a return to the mad days last century. After all people with medical conditions are often denied employment for much less valid reasons.

And black faces were in the past :eek: It will be great when they have workers lining up and competing for a job for the day like in the 30's :T

dervish

1echidna wrote: »

I refer to union outrage that employerers using blacklists to vet potential employees. I see it as in the public interest that militants are kept out of employment in the public interest unless we want a return to the mad days last century. After all people with medical conditions are often denied employment for much less valid reasons.

I dont know about blacklists , but this country could do with a few more 'blackshirts'!