Useless jobs still being recruited for in the civil service

ninky_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

if someone puts an ad out for a chef, and some mincing queen comes in and is brilliant, but the restaurant owner hates mincers, and then some straight bloke comes in and he is average, they owner will hire the straight bloke. no govt worker would change his mind.

that is what the lefty has to understand.

this is true. this is why places like the bbc had positive discrimination policies for some roles. it's a flawed process - especially if the recruitment is done half-heartedly and you clearly end up with someone who wouldn't have got the job just on their abilities.

however what legislation can help with is if, once you are in the job, you feel you are being unfairly harrassed or treated.

of course the most insidious discrimination doesn't come out all honestly and say "i'm not going to hire you because you're gay / black / female".


legislation also helps to contribute to a culture where it's not acceptable to hold these views. often the racist or sexist is something of a herd animal and if they feel that they are no longer part of the gang they may well change their view.

lefties do understand how difficult it is too change things. but - as they say - "every little helps".

bendix

carolt wrote: »

Did I miss something? Is it 'let's be randomly offensive about minorities Day' today, or something?

Or is marklv just on a roll?

Actually, this got me thinking about what constitutes a minority. Isn't being in a minority context-based?

For example, I live in Notting Hill. I'm white, male and sadly unimaginatively decidedly ungay.

Could I lobby my local authority to form a department to represent my interests as a downtrodded minority?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

of course the most insidious discrimination doesn't come out all honestly and say "i'm not going to hire you because you're gay / black / female".


".

You see, for me, I'd never hire a fat person. I once told a recruitment consultant that. She laughed, but then again she would. She was rather sexy.

Oh, and I'm rather scared of dwarves too.

The_White_Horse

but in another way, why shouldn't people be free to discriminate as they like.

why should people be forced to treat people the same if they don't want to. why should someone have to hire a mincing queen if they are slightly better for the job, if the hirer thinks they would irritate them intensely everyday, making their work day unbearable.

people should be able to say "look, you are well qualified for this job, but frankly, i don't like your face and don't think I can work with you day in, day out without having to strangle you".

and that should be for anything. i bet people are prejudice against facial hair or hair colour.

if two women go for a job and they are equally well qualified, if a bloke is hiring, he will probably go for the most attractive one. and why not? If you have to work, you may as well have something good to look at.

people should be entitled to hire whoever they like, or not, for whatever reason.

if you are black, do you want to be hired by a racist because he is forced to hire you? no, you want to be hired on merit.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Actually, this got me thinking about what constitutes a minority. Isn't being in a minority context-based?

For example, I live in Notting Hill. I'm white, male and sadly unimaginatively decidedly ungay.

Could I lobby my local authority to form a department to represent my interests as a downtrodded minority?

i think the term 'minority' is a little outdated and misleading. it's hard to think of something else though.

not all groups subject to prejudice are in a minority. women for example. of black south africans during apartheid.

'oppressed' is a bit loaded. "discrimination vulnerable" might be better.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

i'd be very surprised

you should report them if that's the case.

What if it is someones culture or religion that makes them hate homosexuals, would it not be racist to tell them they are wrong?
Please help me on this one.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

What if it is someones culture or religion that makes them hate homosexuals, would it not be racist to tell them they are wrong?
Please help me on this one.

no - it's not racist.

it may depend which country or culture you're in.

the word Bendix used before, "coloured" is a normal daily description for some people in South Africa, used in the UK it could be considered un-PC or some people may call it racist.

there are very, very few racist people, i believe more people are prejudiced than racist.

ILW

chucky wrote: »

no - it's not racist.

it may depend which country or culture you're in.

the word Bendix used before, "coloured" is a normal daily description for some people in South Africa, used in the UK it could be considered un-PC or some people may call it racist.

there are very, very few racist people, i believe more people are prejudiced than racist.

Apparently the now official defintion of race includes religion and place of birth.
Is there an official order of which "isms" are worst and which one trumps another?

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Apparently the now official defintion of race includes religion and place of birth.
Is there an official order of which "isms" are worst and which one trumps another?

prejudice has no 'ism' in it

ILW

chucky wrote: »

prejudice has no 'ism' in it

One cannot just be prejudiced.
The prejudgement needs to be for or against something or someone which in this discussion is where the "isms" come in.